The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Leveraging Large Language Models for Topic Classification in the Domain of Public Affairs
Abstract
The analysis of public affairs documents is crucial for citizens as it promotes transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making. It allows citizens to understand government policies, participate in public discourse, and hold representatives accountable. This is crucial, and sometimes a matter of life or death, for companies whose operation depend on certain regulations. Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to greatly enhance the analysis of public affairs documents by effectively processing and understanding the complex language used in such documents. In this work, we analyze the performance of LLMs in classifying public affairs documents. As a natural multi-label task, the classification of these documents presents important challenges. In this work, we use a regex-powered tool to collect a database of public affairs documents with more than 33K samples and 22.5M tokens. Our experiments assess the performance of 4 different Spanish LLMs to classify up to 30 different topics in the data in different configurations. The results shows that LLMs can be of great use to process domain-specific documents, such as those in the domain of public affairs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using an LLM backbone in combination with SVM classifiers is a useful strategy to conduct the multi-label topic classification task in the domain of public affairs with accuracies over 85%.
“Peña et al. [154] discussed the problem of topic classification for public affairs documents and showed that using an LLM backbone in combination with SVM classifiers is a useful strategy to conduct the multi-label topic classification task in the domain of public affairs with accuracies over 85%.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
LLMs obtain impressive performance in tasks involving language understanding, including sentiment analysis, text classification, and handling of factual input.
“LLMs obtain impressive performance in tasks involving language understanding, including sentiment analysis [52, 129, 159], text classification [114, 154, 233], as well as the handling of factual input [159].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [154]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
Metadata
- Authors
- Peña, A., Morales, A., Fierrez, J., Serna, I., Ortega-Garcia, J., Puente, I., Cordova, J., & Cordova, G.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2306.02864
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
