3.3 Comparing LLM Performance with Traditional Supervised Learning

3.3 Comparing LLM Performance with Traditional Supervised Learning#

1. Introduction#

In social science research, comparing the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) with traditional supervised learning approaches is crucial for understanding the strengths and limitations of each method. This comparison helps researchers make informed decisions about which approach to use for specific tasks and datasets.

graph TD A[Social Science Research] --> B[Traditional Supervised Learning] A --> C[LLM Approaches] B --> D[Comparison] C --> D D --> E[Informed Decision Making]

2. Recap of Traditional Supervised Learning#

Traditional supervised learning involves training models on labeled data to make predictions on unseen data. Key concepts include:

  • Feature engineering: Selecting and creating relevant features from raw data

  • Model selection: Choosing appropriate algorithms (e.g., logistic regression, random forests, SVMs)

  • Training and validation: Splitting data, training models, and evaluating performance

Here’s a simple example using scikit-learn for a text classification task:

from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfVectorizer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.metrics import classification_report

# Sample data
texts = [
    "The economy is growing rapidly",
    "New environmental policies announced",
    "Sports team wins championship",
    "Technology company releases new product"
]
labels = ["Economy", "Politics", "Sports", "Technology"]

# Split data
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(texts, labels, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

# Feature extraction
vectorizer = TfidfVectorizer()
X_train_vec = vectorizer.fit_transform(X_train)
X_test_vec = vectorizer.transform(X_test)

# Train model
model = LogisticRegression()
model.fit(X_train_vec, y_train)

# Predict and evaluate
y_pred = model.predict(X_test_vec)
print(classification_report(y_test, y_pred))

3. LLM Approaches in Comparison#

LLM approaches differ from traditional methods in several ways:

  1. Zero-shot learning: No task-specific training examples

  2. Few-shot learning: Learning from a small number of examples

  3. Fine-tuning: Adapting pre-trained models to specific tasks

Here’s an example of few-shot learning using OpenAI’s GPT-3:

import openai

openai.api_key = 'your-api-key'

def few_shot_classification(text, categories, examples):
    prompt = f"Classify the following text into one of these categories: {', '.join(categories)}.\n\n"

    for example, category in examples:
        prompt += f"Text: {example}\nCategory: {category}\n\n"

    prompt += f"Text: {text}\nCategory:"

    response = openai.Completion.create(
        engine="text-davinci-002",
        prompt=prompt,
        max_tokens=1,
        n=1,
        stop=None,
        temperature=0.5,
    )

    return response.choices[0].text.strip()

# Example usage
categories = ["Economy", "Politics", "Sports", "Technology"]
examples = [
    ("The stock market reached new highs today", "Economy"),
    ("The president signed a new bill into law", "Politics")
]

text = "A new AI system beats human experts in medical diagnosis"
result = few_shot_classification(text, categories, examples)
print(f"Classified category: {result}")

4. Evaluation Metrics and Methodologies#

To compare LLM performance with traditional supervised learning, we use various metrics:

  1. Classification: Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-score

  2. Regression: Mean Squared Error (MSE), R-squared

  3. Generation: BLEU, ROUGE, Perplexity

Here’s an example comparing traditional and LLM approaches:

from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, precision_recall_fscore_support

def evaluate_performance(y_true, y_pred):
    accuracy = accuracy_score(y_true, y_pred)
    precision, recall, f1, _ = precision_recall_fscore_support(y_true, y_pred, average='weighted')
    return {
        'accuracy': accuracy,
        'precision': precision,
        'recall': recall,
        'f1': f1
    }

# Traditional model performance
traditional_predictions = model.predict(X_test_vec)
traditional_performance = evaluate_performance(y_test, traditional_predictions)

# LLM performance
llm_predictions = []
for text in X_test:
    llm_predictions.append(few_shot_classification(text, categories, examples))
llm_performance = evaluate_performance(y_test, llm_predictions)

print("Traditional model performance:", traditional_performance)
print("LLM performance:", llm_performance)

5. Performance Comparison in Classification Tasks#

When comparing classification performance, consider:

  1. Overall accuracy

  2. Per-class precision and recall

  3. Performance on imbalanced datasets

Here’s an example of handling imbalanced datasets:

from imblearn.over_sampling import SMOTE
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier

# Assume we have imbalanced X_train and y_train
smote = SMOTE(random_state=42)
X_train_balanced, y_train_balanced = smote.fit_resample(X_train_vec, y_train)

# Train Random Forest on balanced data
rf_model = RandomForestClassifier(random_state=42)
rf_model.fit(X_train_balanced, y_train_balanced)

# Evaluate
rf_predictions = rf_model.predict(X_test_vec)
rf_performance = evaluate_performance(y_test, rf_predictions)

print("Random Forest performance on balanced data:", rf_performance)

6. Comparing Text Generation Capabilities#

For text generation tasks, we often use both automated metrics and human evaluation. Here’s an example using the BLEU score:

from nltk.translate.bleu_score import sentence_bleu

def generate_text_traditional(prompt, model, vectorizer, max_length=20):
    generated_text = prompt
    for _ in range(max_length):
        next_word_vec = vectorizer.transform([generated_text])
        next_word = model.predict(next_word_vec)[0]
        generated_text += " " + next_word
    return generated_text

def generate_text_llm(prompt):
    response = openai.Completion.create(
        engine="text-davinci-002",
        prompt=prompt,
        max_tokens=50,
        n=1,
        stop=None,
        temperature=0.7,
    )
    return response.choices[0].text.strip()

# Example usage
prompt = "The impact of social media on"
reference = "The impact of social media on society has been profound, changing how we communicate and share information."

traditional_generated = generate_text_traditional(prompt, model, vectorizer)
llm_generated = generate_text_llm(prompt)

traditional_bleu = sentence_bleu([reference.split()], traditional_generated.split())
llm_bleu = sentence_bleu([reference.split()], llm_generated.split())

print("Traditional model BLEU score:", traditional_bleu)
print("LLM BLEU score:", llm_bleu)

7. Named Entity Recognition (NER) Performance#

Comparing NER performance between traditional models and LLMs:

import spacy
from transformers import pipeline

# Load spaCy model
nlp = spacy.load("en_core_web_sm")

# Load Hugging Face NER pipeline
ner_pipeline = pipeline("ner", model="dbmdz/bert-large-cased-finetuned-conll03-english")

def traditional_ner(text):
    doc = nlp(text)
    return [(ent.text, ent.label_) for ent in doc.ents]

def llm_ner(text):
    entities = ner_pipeline(text)
    return [(ent['word'], ent['entity']) for ent in entities]

# Example usage
text = "Apple Inc. is planning to open a new store in New York City next month, according to CEO Tim Cook."

traditional_entities = traditional_ner(text)
llm_entities = llm_ner(text)

print("Traditional NER results:", traditional_entities)
print("LLM NER results:", llm_entities)

8. Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining#

Comparing sentiment analysis performance:

from textblob import TextBlob

def traditional_sentiment(text):
    return TextBlob(text).sentiment.polarity

def llm_sentiment(text):
    prompt = f"Analyze the sentiment of the following text as positive, negative, or neutral:\n\nText: {text}\n\nSentiment:"
    response = openai.Completion.create(
        engine="text-davinci-002",
        prompt=prompt,
        max_tokens=1,
        n=1,
        stop=None,
        temperature=0.3,
    )
    return response.choices[0].text.strip()

# Example usage
texts = [
    "I love this product! It's amazing.",
    "This service is terrible and I'm very disappointed.",
    "The weather is quite nice today."
]

for text in texts:
    trad_sent = traditional_sentiment(text)
    llm_sent = llm_sentiment(text)
    print(f"Text: {text}")
    print(f"Traditional sentiment: {trad_sent}")
    print(f"LLM sentiment: {llm_sent}\n")

9. Information Extraction and Relation Classification#

Comparing performance on relation extraction tasks:

import re

def traditional_relation_extraction(text):
    pattern = r"(\w+) is the (CEO|founder) of (\w+)"
    matches = re.findall(pattern, text)
    return [{'person': m[0], 'role': m[1], 'company': m[2]} for m in matches]

def llm_relation_extraction(text):
    prompt = f"""Extract the relationship between person, role, and company in the following text.
    Format the output as JSON: {{"person": "", "role": "", "company": ""}}

    Text: {text}

    Relationship:"""

    response = openai.Completion.create(
        engine="text-davinci-002",
        prompt=prompt,
        max_tokens=100,
        n=1,
        stop=None,
        temperature=0.3,
    )
    return response.choices[0].text.strip()

# Example usage
text = "Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX. Jeff Bezos is the founder of Amazon."

trad_relations = traditional_relation_extraction(text)
llm_relations = llm_relation_extraction(text)

print("Traditional relation extraction:", trad_relations)
print("LLM relation extraction:", llm_relations)

10. Computational Efficiency and Resource Requirements#

When comparing LLMs with traditional models, consider:

  1. Training time and data requirements

  2. Inference speed

  3. Hardware requirements

Here’s an example comparing inference speed:

import time

def measure_inference_time(model, input_data, n_runs=100):
    start_time = time.time()
    for _ in range(n_runs):
        _ = model(input_data)
    end_time = time.time()
    return (end_time - start_time) / n_runs

# Traditional model inference time
trad_time = measure_inference_time(lambda x: model.predict(vectorizer.transform([x])), "Sample text for inference")

# LLM inference time
llm_time = measure_inference_time(lambda x: few_shot_classification(x, categories, examples), "Sample text for inference")

print(f"Traditional model average inference time: {trad_time:.4f} seconds")
print(f"LLM average inference time: {llm_time:.4f} seconds")

11. Scalability and Adaptability#

To compare scalability, test models on datasets of varying sizes:

import numpy as np

def evaluate_scalability(model, vectorizer, X, y, n_samples):
    X_subset = X[:n_samples]
    y_subset = y[:n_samples]

    X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X_subset, y_subset, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)
    X_train_vec = vectorizer.fit_transform(X_train)
    X_test_vec = vectorizer.transform(X_test)

    model.fit(X_train_vec, y_train)
    y_pred = model.predict(X_test_vec)
    return accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred)

# Assume X and y are your full dataset
sample_sizes = [100, 1000, 10000]
accuracies = []

for size in sample_sizes:
    acc = evaluate_scalability(LogisticRegression(), TfidfVectorizer(), X, y, size)
    accuracies.append(acc)

# Plot results
plt.plot(sample_sizes, accuracies)
plt.xlabel("Sample size")
plt.ylabel("Accuracy")
plt.title("Scalability of Traditional Model")
plt.show()

12. Interpretability and Explainability#

Compare the interpretability of traditional models and LLMs:

from lime.lime_text import LimeTextExplainer

def explain_traditional_prediction(model, vectorizer, text, labels):
    explainer = LimeTextExplainer(class_names=labels)
    exp = explainer.explain_instance(text, lambda x: model.predict_proba(vectorizer.transform(x)), num_features=5)
    return exp.as_list()

def explain_llm_prediction(text, categories):
    prompt = f"""Classify the following text into one of these categories: {', '.join(categories)}.
    Explain your reasoning step by step.

    Text: {text}

    Classification and explanation:"""

    response = openai.Completion.create(
        engine="text-davinci-002",
        prompt=prompt,
        max_tokens=150,
        n=1,
        stop=None,
        temperature=0.3,
    )
    return response.choices[0].text.strip()

# Example usage
text = "The new economic policy has significantly impacted the stock market."

trad_explanation = explain_traditional_prediction(model, vectorizer, text, categories)
llm_explanation = explain_llm_prediction(text, categories)

print("Traditional model explanation:", trad_explanation)
print("LLM explanation:", llm_explanation)

Conclusion#

Comparing LLM performance with traditional supervised learning involves considering various factors such as accuracy, efficiency, scalability, and interpretability. While LLMs often show superior performance on many NLP tasks, traditional models may still be preferable in scenarios with limited computational resources or when interpretability is crucial.

Researchers should carefully evaluate the trade-offs between these approaches based on their specific research questions, dataset characteristics, and available resources. As the field continues to evolve, hybrid approaches combining the strengths of both paradigms may offer promising directions for future research in social science applications of NLP.

Contents