A Guide To Effectively Leveraging LLMs for Low-Resource Text Summarization: Data Augmentation and Semi-supervised Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing approaches for low-resource text summarization primarily employ large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 or GPT-4 at inference time to generate summaries directly; however, such approaches often suffer from inconsistent LLM outputs and are difficult to adapt to domain-specific data in low-resource scenarios. In this work, we propose two novel methods to effectively utilize LLMs for low-resource text summarization: 1) MixSumm, an LLM-based data augmentation regime that synthesizes high-quality documents (short and long) for few-shot text summarization, and 2) PPSL, a prompt-based pseudolabeling strategy for sample-efficient semi-supervised text summarization. Specifically, MixSumm leverages the open-source LLaMA-3-70b-Instruct model to generate new documents by mixing topical information derived from a small seed set, and PPSL leverages the LLaMA-3-70b-Instruct model to generate high-quality pseudo-labels in a semi-supervised learning setup. We evaluate our methods on the TweetSumm, WikiHow, and ArXiv/PubMed datasets and use L-Eval, a LLaMA-3-based evaluation metric, and ROUGE scores to measure the quality of generated summaries. Our experiments on extractive and abstractive summarization show that MixSumm and PPSL achieve competitive ROUGE scores as a fully supervised method with 5% of the labeled data. We release our codebase here: https://github.com/ServiceNow/text-summarization-with-llms/
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".