Building Real-World Meeting Summarization Systems using Large Language Models: A Practical Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies how to effectively build meeting summarization systems for real-world usage using large language models (LLMs). For this purpose, we conduct an extensive evaluation and comparison of various closed-source and open-source LLMs, namely, GPT-4, GPT-3.5, PaLM-2, and LLaMA-2. Our findings reveal that most closed-source LLMs are generally better in terms of performance. However, much smaller open-source models like LLaMA-2 (7B and 13B) could still achieve performance comparable to the large closed-source models even in zero-shot scenarios. Considering the privacy concerns of closed-source models for only being accessible via API, alongside the high cost associated with using fine-tuned versions of the closed-source models, the opensource models that can achieve competitive performance are more advantageous for industrial use. Balancing performance with associated costs and privacy concerns, the LLaMA-2-7B model looks more promising for industrial usage. In sum, this paper offers practical insights on using LLMs for real-world business meeting summarization, shedding light on the trade-offs between performance and cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it