Benchmarking and Analyzing In-context Learning, Fine-tuning and Supervised Learning for Biomedical Knowledge Curation: a focused study on chemical entities of biological interest
December 20, 2023 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ VLDB Workshops
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Emily Groves, Minhong Wang, Yusuf Abdulle, Holger Kunz, Jason Hoelscher-Obermaier, Ronin Wu, Honghan Wu
arXiv ID
2312.12989
Category
cs.LG: Machine Learning
Cross-listed
cs.CL,
q-bio.QM
Citations
2
Venue
VLDB Workshops
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Automated knowledge curation for biomedical ontologies is key to ensure that they remain comprehensive, high-quality and up-to-date. In the era of foundational language models, this study compares and analyzes three NLP paradigms for curation tasks: in-context learning (ICL), fine-tuning (FT), and supervised learning (ML). Using the Chemical Entities of Biological Interest (ChEBI) database as a model ontology, three curation tasks were devised. For ICL, three prompting strategies were employed with GPT-4, GPT-3.5, BioGPT. PubmedBERT was chosen for the FT paradigm. For ML, six embedding models were utilized for training Random Forest and Long-Short Term Memory models. Five setups were designed to assess ML and FT model performance across different data availability scenarios.Datasets for curation tasks included: task 1 (620,386), task 2 (611,430), and task 3 (617,381), maintaining a 50:50 positive versus negative ratio. For ICL models, GPT-4 achieved best accuracy scores of 0.916, 0.766 and 0.874 for tasks 1-3 respectively. In a direct comparison, ML (trained on ~260,000 triples) outperformed ICL in accuracy across all tasks. (accuracy differences: +.11, +.22 and +.17). Fine-tuned PubmedBERT performed similarly to leading ML models in tasks 1 & 2 (F1 differences: -.014 and +.002), but worse in task 3 (-.048). Simulations revealed performance declines in both ML and FT models with smaller and higher imbalanced training data. where ICL (particularly GPT-4) excelled in tasks 1 & 3. GPT-4 excelled in tasks 1 and 3 with less than 6,000 triples, surpassing ML/FT. ICL underperformed ML/FT in task 2.ICL-augmented foundation models can be good assistants for knowledge curation with correct prompting, however, not making ML and FT paradigms obsolete. The latter two require task-specific data to beat ICL. In such cases, ML relies on small pretrained embeddings, minimizing computational demands.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning
๐
๐
Old Age
Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networks
๐
๐
Old Age
Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actor
๐
๐
Old Age
SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted