LLMs vs Established Text Augmentation Techniques for Classification: When do the Benefits Outweight the Costs?

Jan Cegin, Jakub Simko, Peter Brusilovsky
8/29/2024
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

The generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for data augmentation tasks, where text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used for classifier fine-tuning. However, a research that would confirm a clear cost-benefit advantage of LLMs over more established augmentation methods is largely missing. To study if (and when) is the LLM-based augmentation advantageous, we compared the effects of recent LLM augmentation methods with established ones on 6 datasets, 3 classifiers and 2 fine-tuning methods. We also varied the number of seeds and collected samples to better explore the downstream model accuracy space. Finally, we performed a cost-benefit analysis and show that LLM-based methods are worthy of deployment only when very small number of seeds is used. Moreover, in many cases, established methods lead to similar or better model accuracies.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{cegin2024llms,
  title  = {LLMs vs Established Text Augmentation Techniques for Classification: When do the Benefits Outweight the Costs?},
  author = {Jan Cegin and Jakub Simko and Peter Brusilovsky},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2408.16502},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.16502v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2408.16502.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2408.16502)

Discussion