MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992166424

Large Data-to-Text Generation

2023· dissertation· en· W6992166424 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Analysis and Summarization
Canadian institutionsBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrectnessPipeline (software)Relation (database)FidelityReal world dataPrecision and recallHeuristics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis presents a domain-driven approach to sports game summarization, a specific instance of large data-to-text generation (DTG). We first address the data fidelity issue in the Rotowire dataset by supplementing existing input records and demonstrating larger relative improvements compared to previously proposed purification schemes. As this method further increases the total number of input records, we alternatively formulate this problem as a multimodal problem (i.e. visual data-to-text), discussing potential advantages over purely textual approaches and studying its effectiveness for future expansion. We work exclusively with pre-trained end-to-end transformers throughout, allowing us to evaluate the efficacy of sparse attention and multimodal encoder-decoders in DTG and providing appropriate benchmarks for future work.
\n
\nTo automatically evaluate the statistical correctness of generated summaries, we also extend prior work on automatic relation extraction and build an updated pipeline that incorporates low amounts of human-annotated data which are quickly inflated via data augmentation. By formulating this in a ”text-to-text” fashion, we are able to take advantage of LLMs and achieve significantly higher precision and recall than previous methods while tracking three times the number of unique relations. Our updated models are more consistent and reliable by incorporating human-verified data partitions into the training and evaluation process.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicVideo Analysis and SummarizationFrench-language works237,207