MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7093622488

S poizvedovanjem obogateno generiranje besedil z domensko specifičnim doučevanjem velikih jezikovnih modeloveli

2024· article· en· W7093622488 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepository of the University of Ljubljana (University of Ljubljana) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Generator (circuit theory)Component (thermodynamics)Question answeringLabrador RetrieverContext modelArchitecture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing an automated question-answering system to streamline customer support email handling presents an effective solution to reduce manual response times and effort. Currently, support agents respond to emails manually, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. We tested several configurations to build a system capable of automatically answering these emails. The data used was provided by Zebra BI and consisted of a structured corpus of support emails and an unstructured corpus derived from product documentation. We compared two main approaches for tackling such problems. The first one fine-tuned a Large Language Model to answer emails directly. This approach contained a generator component only. The second one utilized the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) architecture which contained both the retriever and generator. The retriever, retrieved similar emails and append them to the context of an off-the-shelf LLM tasked with answering the question given the context from the previous similar emails. For the latter, we implemented a custom dual-decoder retriever model using the LoRA training technique and quantization. The dual-decoder retriever model generated embeddings for both the email and email answer passages using separate decoders and ranked them based on the cosine similarity. We developed six different question-answering system configurations. Some configurations utilized both the retriever and generator component, while others had only the generator. The best-performing configuration featured our custom dual-decoder retriever model, which improved the system's ability to retrieve relevant information from the domain-specific email corpus. This also showed that training a retriever model and utilizing the RAG architecture is more effective in comparison to fine-tuning an LLM, in cases where there is lower amount of data which is of lower quality. The most optimal retriever, built on the Llama-2-7B architecture using LoRA and 4-bit quantization, achieved a 0.53 Accuracy@100 and 0.032 MRR@100. In comparison, the state-of-the-art BGE-large-en retriever model scored 0.282 Accuracy@100 and 0.009 MRR@100 on the same domain. When paired with GPT-4o as the generator, the dual-decoder retriever received a 1282 ELO rating in our manual evaluation, while the BGE-large-en retriever scored 1256 with the same generator, and the fine-tuned LLM model scored 1071. The experiments showed that the dual-decoder retriever configuration provided the most accurate and contextually relevant answers, outperforming the state-of-the-art configuration. It also showed that decoder LLM models can be utilized for building a retriever model with relatively small amount of data. The final system, integrated into a Chrome extension, had a significant impact on Zebra BI's support workflows by automating a large portion of the response process. This not only reduced response times but also improved the accuracy and consistency of answers provided to customers. The extension is now used semi-automatically by Zebra BI's support team, freeing up agents to focus their attention on more complex issues.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.161 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepository of the University of Ljubljana (University of Ljubljana)Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207