Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13709 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866913511628603392 |
|---|---|
| author | Martorana, Margherita Pan, Xueli Kruit, Benno Kuhn, Tobias van Ossenbruggen, Jacco |
| author_facet | Martorana, Margherita Pan, Xueli Kruit, Benno Kuhn, Tobias van Ossenbruggen, Jacco |
| contents | Traditional Semantic Table Interpretation (STI) methods rely primarily on the underlying table data to create semantic annotations. This year's SemTab challenge introduced the ``Metadata to KG'' track, which focuses on performing STI by using only metadata information, without access to the underlying data. In response to this new challenge, we introduce a new term: Column Vocabulary Association (CVA). This term refers to the task of semantic annotation of column headers solely based on metadata information. In this study, we evaluate the performance of various methods in executing the CVA task, including a Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) approach, as well as a more traditional similarity approach with SemanticBERT. Our methodology uses a zero-shot setting, with no pretraining or examples passed to the Large Language Models (LLMs), as we aim to avoid a domain-specific setting.
We investigate a total of 7 different LLMs, of which three commercial GPT models (i.e. gpt-3.5-turbo-0.125, gpt-4o and gpt-4-turbo) and four open source models (i.e. llama3-80b, llama3-7b, gemma-7b and mixtral-8x7b). We integrate this models with RAG systems, and we explore how variations in temperature settings affect performances. Moreover, we continue our investigation by performing the CVA task utilizing SemanticBERT, analyzing how various metadata information influence its performance.
Initial findings indicate that LLMs generally perform well at temperatures below 1.0, achieving an accuracy of 100\% in certain cases. Nevertheless, our investigation also reveal that the nature of the data significantly influences CVA task outcomes. In fact, in cases where the input data and glossary are related (for example by being created by the same organizations) traditional methods appear to surpass the performance of LLMs. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2409_13709 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Column Vocabulary Association (CVA): semantic interpretation of dataless tables Martorana, Margherita Pan, Xueli Kruit, Benno Kuhn, Tobias van Ossenbruggen, Jacco Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Traditional Semantic Table Interpretation (STI) methods rely primarily on the underlying table data to create semantic annotations. This year's SemTab challenge introduced the ``Metadata to KG'' track, which focuses on performing STI by using only metadata information, without access to the underlying data. In response to this new challenge, we introduce a new term: Column Vocabulary Association (CVA). This term refers to the task of semantic annotation of column headers solely based on metadata information. In this study, we evaluate the performance of various methods in executing the CVA task, including a Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) approach, as well as a more traditional similarity approach with SemanticBERT. Our methodology uses a zero-shot setting, with no pretraining or examples passed to the Large Language Models (LLMs), as we aim to avoid a domain-specific setting. We investigate a total of 7 different LLMs, of which three commercial GPT models (i.e. gpt-3.5-turbo-0.125, gpt-4o and gpt-4-turbo) and four open source models (i.e. llama3-80b, llama3-7b, gemma-7b and mixtral-8x7b). We integrate this models with RAG systems, and we explore how variations in temperature settings affect performances. Moreover, we continue our investigation by performing the CVA task utilizing SemanticBERT, analyzing how various metadata information influence its performance. Initial findings indicate that LLMs generally perform well at temperatures below 1.0, achieving an accuracy of 100\% in certain cases. Nevertheless, our investigation also reveal that the nature of the data significantly influences CVA task outcomes. In fact, in cases where the input data and glossary are related (for example by being created by the same organizations) traditional methods appear to surpass the performance of LLMs. |
| title | Column Vocabulary Association (CVA): semantic interpretation of dataless tables |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.13709 |