This paper explores the effectiveness of zero-shot large language models (LLMs) in the financial domain, specifically focusing on ChatGPT. The authors compare the performance of ChatGPT with open-source generative LLMs and RoBERTa fine-tuned on annotated data. They address three research questions related to data annotation, performance gaps, and the feasibility of using generative models in finance. The authors mention that LLMs like ChatGPT have shown impressive performance on various natural language processing tasks without any labeled data. However, fine-tuned models generally outperform ChatGPT. The research also highlights the time-intensive nature of annotating with generative models. To answer their research questions, the authors use four financial NLP tasks and benchmark different models. They employ RoBERTa-base and RoBERTa-large for fine-tuning benchmarks, while using ChatGPT-3.5-Turbo, Dolly-V2-12B, and H2O-12B as zero-shot models. Key insights from this study include: 1) While zero-shot ChatGPT fails to outperform fine-tuned PLMs (Pre-trained Language Models), it still performs impressively across all tasks without access to labeled data; 2) The performance gap between fine-tuned PLMs and ChatGPT is larger when datasets are not publicly available yet; 3) Fully open source LLMs perform significantly lower than ChatGPT for financial tasks; 4) Using generative LLMs for labeling data can be 1000 times more time consuming compared to fine tuned PLMs. The paper also discusses the datasets used in the study including hawkish dovish sequence classification, financial sentiment analysis, financial numerical claim detection and named entity recognition datasets. In summary, this paper is one of the first studies to investigate how well ChatGPT performs with zero shot on various NLP tasks in the financial domain. It compares ChatGPT with other open source generative LLMs and fine tuned PLMs providing insights into the performance gaps feasibility of using generative models and time required for data annotation in finance research projects.
- - This paper explores the effectiveness of zero-shot large language models (LLMs) in the financial domain, specifically focusing on ChatGPT.
- - The authors compare the performance of ChatGPT with open-source generative LLMs and RoBERTa fine-tuned on annotated data.
- - Three research questions are addressed: data annotation, performance gaps, and feasibility of using generative models in finance.
- - LLMs like ChatGPT have shown impressive performance without labeled data, but fine-tuned models generally outperform ChatGPT.
- - Annotating with generative models is time-intensive.
- - Four financial NLP tasks are used to benchmark different models.
- - Key insights from the study include:
- - Zero-shot ChatGPT performs impressively across all tasks without labeled data, but doesn't outperform fine-tuned PLMs.
- - Performance gap between fine-tuned PLMs and ChatGPT is larger when datasets are not publicly available yet.
- - Fully open source LLMs perform significantly lower than ChatGPT for financial tasks.
- - Using generative LLMs for labeling data can be 1000 times more time consuming compared to fine tuned PLMs.
- - The paper discusses various datasets used in the study related to hawkish dovish sequence classification, financial sentiment analysis, financial numerical claim detection, and named entity recognition.
- - Overall, this paper provides insights into how well ChatGPT performs with zero shot on various NLP tasks in the financial domain and compares it with other generative LLMs and fine-tuned PLMs. It also highlights performance gaps, feasibility of using generative models, and time required for data annotation in finance research projects.
This paper is about a special computer program called ChatGPT that helps with talking and writing in the financial field. The authors compared ChatGPT with other similar programs to see how well it works. They asked three important questions: how to label data, the difference in performance between different programs, and if generative models can be used in finance. ChatGPT is good at its job even without labeled data, but other programs that are fine-tuned work even better. It takes a long time to label data using generative models. The paper also talks about different tasks and datasets used in the study."
Definitions- Zero-shot: When a computer program can do something without being specifically trained for it.
- Large language models (LLMs): Special computer programs that help with talking and writing.
- Financial domain: The area of finance or money-related things.
- Performance: How well a computer program does its job.
- Generative: Creating or making something new.
- Fine-tuned: When a computer program is adjusted or improved for specific tasks.
- Annotating: Adding labels or information to something.
- Benchmark: A way to compare different things and see which one is better.
- NLP tasks: Tasks related to natural language processing, which means understanding and working with human language using computers.
- PLMs: Another type of large language model like ChatGPT.
Exploring the Performance of Zero-Shot Large Language Models in the Financial Domain
The financial domain is an increasingly popular area for natural language processing (NLP) research. With the introduction of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, researchers have been able to achieve impressive results without any labeled data. However, it remains unclear how well these zero-shot LLMs perform compared to fine-tuned models on various NLP tasks in the financial domain. To address this question, a recent paper by researchers at Microsoft and Stanford University explored the effectiveness of zero-shot LLMs in finance using four different tasks. In this blog article, we will discuss their findings and provide insights into performance gaps between generative and fine-tuned models, as well as data annotation feasibility in finance projects.
Background
Large language models are deep neural networks trained on massive amounts of text data with unsupervised learning techniques such as self-supervision or contrastive learning. These models can be used for various NLP tasks without requiring any labeled data - a process known as “zero shot” learning. One example is ChatGPT - a transformer based model developed by Microsoft Research that has achieved impressive results on various NLP tasks without access to labeled data.
In addition to zero shot LLMs, there are also pre-trained language models (PLMs) which require some amount of annotated training data before they can be used for specific tasks. For instance, RoBERTa is a PLM developed by Google AI that requires supervised training on annotated datasets before it can be used for downstream applications like sentiment analysis or named entity recognition (NER).
Research Questions
To compare the performance of zero shot LLMs with fine tuned PLMs in finance research projects, the authors addressed three main research questions:
1) How does ChatGPT compare with open source generative LLMs and RoBERTa fine tuned on annotated datasets?
2) What are the performance gaps between generative and fine tuned models?
3) Is it feasible to use generative models for labeling data?
Methodology
To answer their research questions, the authors employed four different financial NLP tasks including hawkish dovish sequence classification task from Bloomberg News Corpus; financial sentiment analysis task from Reuters news corpus; financial numerical claim detection task from SEC filings; and named entity recognition task from SEC filings dataset. They benchmarked different models including RoBERTa base & large versions for fine tuning benchmarks while using ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo version along with Dolly V2 12B & H20 12B versions as zero shot models respectively across all four tasks mentioned above..
Findings
The study found that while zero shot ChatGPT failed to outperform fine tuned PLMSs (Pre Trained Language Models), it still performed impressively across all four tasks without access to labeled datasets – showing its potential utility when no annotations are available yet or when time constraints limit manual annotation efforts . The authors also observed larger performance gaps between fine tuned PLMSs & ChatGPT when datasets were not publicly available yet – indicating that more work needs to be done if one wants better accuracy scores than what was achieved here . Additionally , fully open source LLMSs performed significantly lower than ChatGPT across all four financial NLPs – suggesting that proprietary technologies may offer superior results over public ones . Lastly , they found out that using generative LLMSs for labeling data could take up 1000 times more time compared to what’s required by Fine Tuned PLMSs – highlighting once again why manual annotation efforts should always be minimized whenever possible .
Conclusion
This paper provides valuable insights into how well zero shot large language model performs compared to other open source generative MLM's and Fine Tuned Pre Trained Language Model's in Finance related Natural Language Processing Tasks . It highlights both advantages & disadvantages associated with each approach so readers can make informed decisions about which technology best suits their needs given certain constraints like budget , timeline etc .. While further studies need to conducted before drawing definitive conclusions , this study clearly shows promise towards leveraging powerful new technologies like Zero Shot Large Language Models even within highly specialized domains like Finance where manual annotation efforts often prove too costly or time consuming .