Use of a Structured Knowledge Base Enhances Metadata Curation by Large Language Models
2404.05893
0
0
💬
Abstract
Metadata play a crucial role in ensuring the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of datasets. This paper investigates the potential of large language models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to improve adherence to metadata standards. We conducted experiments on 200 random data records describing human samples relating to lung cancer from the NCBI BioSample repository, evaluating GPT-4's ability to suggest edits for adherence to metadata standards. We computed the adherence accuracy of field name-field value pairs through a peer review process, and we observed a marginal average improvement in adherence to the standard data dictionary from 79% to 80% (p<0.01). We then prompted GPT-4 with domain information in the form of the textual descriptions of CEDAR templates and recorded a significant improvement to 97% from 79% (p<0.01). These results indicate that, while LLMs may not be able to correct legacy metadata to ensure satisfactory adherence to standards when unaided, they do show promise for use in automated metadata curation when integrated with a structured knowledge base.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 can help improve the quality of metadata for datasets.
- Metadata is crucial for ensuring datasets are findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable.
- The researchers conducted experiments to see if GPT-4 could suggest edits to improve adherence to metadata standards.
Plain English Explanation
Metadata is the information that describes a dataset, such as what it contains, who created it, and when it was made. This metadata is crucial because it allows people to easily find, access, use, and share the datasets they need.
In this study, the researchers wanted to see if a large language model (LLM) like GPT-4 could help improve the quality of metadata. LLMs are powerful AI models that can understand and generate human-like text. The researchers thought LLMs might be able to suggest edits to metadata to better match standard guidelines.
The researchers looked at 200 records describing lung cancer data samples from a public repository. They had human experts review the metadata for each record and assess how well it followed the standard guidelines. On average, the metadata was 79% adherent to the guidelines.
The researchers then showed GPT-4 the standard guidelines and asked it to suggest improvements to the metadata. With this additional context, GPT-4 was able to boost the average adherence to 97% - a significant improvement. This suggests that while LLMs may not be able to automatically fix all metadata issues on their own, they could be very helpful tools for automating metadata curation when paired with a structured knowledge base.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted experiments to evaluate GPT-4's ability to suggest edits that would improve adherence to metadata standards. They used a dataset of 200 random data records describing human samples related to lung cancer from the NCBI BioSample repository.
First, they had a team of human experts review the metadata for each record and assess how well the field name-field value pairs adhered to the standard data dictionary. This resulted in an average adherence accuracy of 79%.
The researchers then prompted GPT-4 with the textual descriptions of the CEDAR metadata templates, which provided the model with domain-specific knowledge about the expected metadata structure and semantics. When prompted in this way, GPT-4 was able to significantly improve the average adherence accuracy to 97%.
These results indicate that while large language models may not be able to fully automate the correction of legacy metadata to ensure satisfactory adherence to standards when used in isolation, they do show promise for use in automated metadata curation when integrated with a structured knowledge base like the CEDAR templates.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides promising evidence that large language models like GPT-4 can be leveraged to improve metadata quality, but it also acknowledges some important limitations and areas for further research.
One key caveat is that the study was conducted on a relatively small dataset of 200 records, so the generalizability of the results to larger or more diverse datasets remains to be seen. Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific types of metadata edits that GPT-4 was able to suggest, so it's unclear whether the model was able to identify and address a wide range of metadata issues or was focused on more narrow types of problems.
Further research could explore the performance of other large language models, as well as the potential benefits of fine-tuning or adapting these models to specific metadata domains or standards. Investigating the interpretability and explainability of the model's suggestions could also help build trust and facilitate human-model collaboration in metadata curation workflows.
Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution by demonstrating the potential of LLMs to augment metadata management, but more work is needed to fully realize the promise of this approach at scale.
Conclusion
This study investigated the use of the large language model GPT-4 to improve adherence to metadata standards for a dataset of lung cancer samples. The results showed that while GPT-4 was not able to significantly improve metadata quality on its own, it was able to suggest edits that boosted adherence to standards by a substantial margin when provided with domain-specific knowledge.
These findings suggest that large language models could be powerful tools for automating metadata curation when integrated with structured knowledge bases, helping to ensure datasets are more findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. As the volume and complexity of scientific data continue to grow, innovations in metadata management will be crucial for unlocking the full value of these valuable resources.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias
Andres Algaba, Carmen Mazijn, Vincent Holst, Floriano Tori, Sylvia Wenmackers, Vincent Ginis
0
0
Citation practices are crucial in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge, yet they are often influenced by contemporary norms and biases. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 introduces a new dynamic to these practices. Interestingly, the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by LLMs that entirely rely on their parametric knowledge, and not on search or retrieval-augmented generation, remain unexplored. Here, we analyze these characteristics in an experiment using a dataset of 166 papers from AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR, published after GPT-4's knowledge cut-off date, encompassing 3,066 references in total. In our experiment, GPT-4 was tasked with suggesting scholarly references for the anonymized in-text citations within these papers. Our findings reveal a remarkable similarity between human and LLM citation patterns, but with a more pronounced high citation bias in GPT-4, which persists even after controlling for publication year, title length, number of authors, and venue. Additionally, we observe a large consistency between the characteristics of GPT-4's existing and non-existent generated references, indicating the model's internalization of citation patterns. By analyzing citation graphs, we show that the references recommended by GPT-4 are embedded in the relevant citation context, suggesting an even deeper conceptual internalization of the citation networks. While LLMs can aid in citation generation, they may also amplify existing biases and introduce new ones, potentially skewing scientific knowledge dissemination. Our results underscore the need for identifying the model's biases and for developing balanced methods to interact with LLMs in general.
5/30/2024
Using Large Language Models to Enrich the Documentation of Datasets for Machine Learning
Joan Giner-Miguelez, Abel G'omez, Jordi Cabot
0
0
Recent regulatory initiatives like the European AI Act and relevant voices in the Machine Learning (ML) community stress the need to describe datasets along several key dimensions for trustworthy AI, such as the provenance processes and social concerns. However, this information is typically presented as unstructured text in accompanying documentation, hampering their automated analysis and processing. In this work, we explore using large language models (LLM) and a set of prompting strategies to automatically extract these dimensions from documents and enrich the dataset description with them. Our approach could aid data publishers and practitioners in creating machine-readable documentation to improve the discoverability of their datasets, assess their compliance with current AI regulations, and improve the overall quality of ML models trained on them. In this paper, we evaluate the approach on 12 scientific dataset papers published in two scientific journals (Nature's Scientific Data and Elsevier's Data in Brief) using two different LLMs (GPT3.5 and Flan-UL2). Results show good accuracy with our prompt extraction strategies. Concrete results vary depending on the dimensions, but overall, GPT3.5 shows slightly better accuracy (81,21%) than FLAN-UL2 (69,13%) although it is more prone to hallucinations. We have released an open-source tool implementing our approach and a replication package, including the experiments' code and results, in an open-source repository.
5/27/2024
💬
Exploring the use of a Large Language Model for data extraction in systematic reviews: a rapid feasibility study
Lena Schmidt, Kaitlyn Hair, Sergio Graziozi, Fiona Campbell, Claudia Kapp, Alireza Khanteymoori, Dawn Craig, Mark Engelbert, James Thomas
0
0
This paper describes a rapid feasibility study of using GPT-4, a large language model (LLM), to (semi)automate data extraction in systematic reviews. Despite the recent surge of interest in LLMs there is still a lack of understanding of how to design LLM-based automation tools and how to robustly evaluate their performance. During the 2023 Evidence Synthesis Hackathon we conducted two feasibility studies. Firstly, to automatically extract study characteristics from human clinical, animal, and social science domain studies. We used two studies from each category for prompt-development; and ten for evaluation. Secondly, we used the LLM to predict Participants, Interventions, Controls and Outcomes (PICOs) labelled within 100 abstracts in the EBM-NLP dataset. Overall, results indicated an accuracy of around 80%, with some variability between domains (82% for human clinical, 80% for animal, and 72% for studies of human social sciences). Causal inference methods and study design were the data extraction items with the most errors. In the PICO study, participants and intervention/control showed high accuracy (>80%), outcomes were more challenging. Evaluation was done manually; scoring methods such as BLEU and ROUGE showed limited value. We observed variability in the LLMs predictions and changes in response quality. This paper presents a template for future evaluations of LLMs in the context of data extraction for systematic review automation. Our results show that there might be value in using LLMs, for example as second or third reviewers. However, caution is advised when integrating models such as GPT-4 into tools. Further research on stability and reliability in practical settings is warranted for each type of data that is processed by the LLM.
5/24/2024
Evaluating Large Language Models for Structured Science Summarization in the Open Research Knowledge Graph
Vladyslav Nechakhin, Jennifer D'Souza, Steffen Eger
0
0
Structured science summaries or research contributions using properties or dimensions beyond traditional keywords enhances science findability. Current methods, such as those used by the Open Research Knowledge Graph (ORKG), involve manually curating properties to describe research papers' contributions in a structured manner, but this is labor-intensive and inconsistent between the domain expert human curators. We propose using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically suggest these properties. However, it's essential to assess the readiness of LLMs like GPT-3.5, Llama 2, and Mistral for this task before application. Our study performs a comprehensive comparative analysis between ORKG's manually curated properties and those generated by the aforementioned state-of-the-art LLMs. We evaluate LLM performance through four unique perspectives: semantic alignment and deviation with ORKG properties, fine-grained properties mapping accuracy, SciNCL embeddings-based cosine similarity, and expert surveys comparing manual annotations with LLM outputs. These evaluations occur within a multidisciplinary science setting. Overall, LLMs show potential as recommendation systems for structuring science, but further finetuning is recommended to improve their alignment with scientific tasks and mimicry of human expertise.
5/6/2024