Fine-Tuning and Aligning Question Answering Models for Complex Information Extraction Tasks
Open accessAbstract
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has boosted performance and possibilities in various NLP tasks. While the usage of generative AI models like ChatGPT opens up new opportunities for several business use cases, their current tendency to hallucinate fake content strongly limits their applicability to document analysis, such as information retrieval from documents. In contrast, extractive language models like question answering (QA) or passage retrieval models guarantee query results to be found within the boundaries of an according context document, which makes them candidates for more reliable information extraction in productive environments of companies. In this work we propose an approach that uses and integrates extractive QA models for improved feature extraction of German business documents such as insurance reports or medical leaflets into a document analysis solution. We further show that fine-tuning existing German QA models boosts performance for tailored extract ion tasks of complex linguistic features like damage cause explanations or descriptions of medication appearance, even with using only a small set of annotated data. Finally, we discuss the relevance of scoring metrics for evaluating information extraction tasks and deduce a combined metric from Levenshtein distance, F1-Score, Exact Match and ROUGE-L to mimic the assessment criteria from human experts.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer comprises numerous simple feed-forward expert networks and a trainable gating network responsible for expert selection, facilitating dynamic and sparse activation of experts for each input instance while maintaining high computational efficiency.
“The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layer, a key component of these models, comprises numerous simple feed-forward expert networks and a trainable gating network responsible for expert selection, which can facilitate the dynamic and sparse activation of experts for each input instance, maintaining high computational efficiency [293], [294], [110].”
From From Google Gemini to OpenAI Q* (Q-Star): A Survey on Reshaping the Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research Landscape (2025) · cites this paper as [294]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
McIntosh, T. R., Susnjak, T., Liu, T., Watters, P., Xu, D., Liu, D., & Halgamuge, M. N. (2025) · Technologies · doi:10.3390/technologies13020051 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
- Authors
- Engelbach, M., Klau, D., Scheerer, F., Drawehn, J., & Kintz, M.
- Affiliations
- Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering (DE)
- University of Stuttgart (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 196-205
- OpenAlex
- W4388877206
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Fraunhofer-Publica (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- question answering systems, fine-tuning, model alignment
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