Innovative idea: Using structured explanations explicitly mentioning attributes, importance, and similarity to augment training data for improved LLM fine-tuning in entity matching.
📚 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.08185
Original Problem 💡:
Existing research on using LLMs for entity matching focused on prompt engineering and in-context learning. This paper explores the potential of fine-tuning LLMs for improved performance and generalization.
-----
Solution in this Paper 🧠:
• Analyzes fine-tuning along two dimensions:
- Representation of training examples (adding LLM-generated explanations)
- Selection and generation of training examples using LLMs
• Experiments with:
- Standard fine-tuning
- Augmenting training data with textual/structured explanations
- Filtering training sets
- Generating synthetic training examples
- Error-based example selection
-----
Key Insights from this Paper 💡:
• Fine-tuning significantly improves smaller models' performance
• Structured explanations enhance performance and generalization
• Example selection/generation methods improve Llama 3.1 8B but decrease GPT-4o Mini performance
• Fine-tuning improves in-domain generalization but hurts cross-domain transfer
• Fine-tuning reduces prompt sensitivity
-----
Results 📊:
• Llama 8B: 17.31 point average F1 gain over zero-shot baseline
• GPT-4o-mini: 11.72 point average F1 increase
• Structured explanations: 0.93-4.94 point F1 improvement for 3/4 models
• Example generation + filtering: 97% of dedicated model performance in in-domain generalization
Share this post