Data Generation using Large Language Models for Text Classification:
An Empirical Case Study

To assess the effectiveness of data augmentation, we train models with pure synthetic data and augmented data. For the augmented setting, 100 raw data points are mixed with 1000 synthetic data. In the data generation stage, we use only the same 100 raw data points used for in-context generation to prevent the model from accessing additional data. As shown in Figure 2, we observe significant improvements across all tasks for most prompting methods when incorporating raw data into training. Even as few as 100 data points can boost synthetic data performance compared to using only synthetic data.

In the BoolQ task, we found that the zero-shot generation method outperforms other methods, which contrasts with the results obtained for the rest of the tasks. This finding is intriguing since zero-shot data exhibits the highest repetition rate, which is detrimental to model training. Upon further examination, we noticed that only in the datasets generated using one-shot or few-shot methods, terms like ”not,” ”significant,” ”only,” ”just,” ”few,” and ”little” frequently appear in the generated questions. These terms create a tone that can be used to imply the answer to the question (which is often False). Table 2 provides an example of such trivial question. Table 4 provides statistics for such questions from different prompting method.

We hypothesize that this pattern introduces bias in model training by encouraging the model to search for specific keywords in the question rather than reading the passage. To test this hypothesis, we instruct the LLM to rephrase the questions ”like what people would search online” for each synthetic example (see Appendix B). We found that performance significantly improved for zero-shot topic and one-shot method after rephrasing. The work (Okur et al., 2022a) has also shows the effectiveness of paraphrasing in other data augmentation techniques.

Although we only detected synthetic bias in the BoolQ task, it remains an important factor to consider during data generation. The technique of rephrasing might not be applicable to other cases, but ensuring that synthetic data does not contain unwanted patterns is necessary.

For all the rest experiments, the results for BoolQ task are all under the question rephrasing setting unless otherwise specified.

While it may seem intuitive that the effectiveness of using LLMs to generate data for model training depends on the LLM’s knowledge of a specific task, our research has shown that this is not always the case. The zero-shot or few-shot performance of an LLM on a task does not necessarily determine the performance of a model (specifically, the RoBERTa model used in our experiment) trained with data generated by the LLM. In other words, the fact that an LLM performs well on a task does not guarantee that models finetuned with data generated by the LLM will also perform well. Additionally, for tasks where the LLM performs poorly, models finetuned on the synthetic data generated by the LLM could actually outperform the LLM itself. The former scenario could be due to the fact that the ability of an LLM to generate good examples for a task does not always correspond to its ability to solve the task itself. The latter scenario is also plausible, as an LLM may be proficient at generating examples with a given label, but not as good at predicting the label given the task itself.

The results of our experiment can be found in Table 5. For each task, we prompted the LLM (GPT3.5-turbo) with zero/one/three/five-shot learning and reported the best performance achieved across all in-context learning methods. We did not optimize the prompt or use any advanced prompting methods in our evaluation of the LLM. It is possible that the LLM could achieve better performance with more advanced prompting techniques. However, the results obtained from the most basic in-context learning method (see Appendix D) do provide valuable insights into this problem.

For SST-2, BoolQ, NYT, and Review tasks, we found a performance gap of 10-15% between the LLM’s in-context learning performance on the task and the fine-tuned language model (RoBERTa model) using synthetic data. For RTE and EMO tasks, the LLM does not perform well, but the data generated by the LLM leads to much better performance. Therefore, even for tasks that LLMs struggle to solve, using LLM-generated synthetic data can still achieve better results.

Previous work has shown that it is challenging for models trained with synthetic data to perform as well as models trained with the same amount of original data (Li et al., 2023; Ding et al., 2023). However, when human-annotated data is limited, synthetic data augmentation can improve model performance. In fact, this technique is most effective in low-resource settings. For all tasks with 100 raw data points, we found that synthetic data augmentation yields improvements of at least 3% to 26%. When the raw training data increases to 1,000, only four tasks show improvements, which are less than 5% (Figure 3). There is no universal rule for determining the amount of raw data considered as low-resource. It is worth noting that 1,000 data points still represent a small portion of training data for all six tasks. The model continues to improve as we increase the number of raw data for training. However, the amount of performance gain obtained from increasing training data is also dependent on other factors such as task and model complexity. Based on this observation, we consider 100 raw data points as low-resource tasks, which will be used as the default augmented setting in all experiments.

In the synthetic data only setting, one-shot or zero-shot topic methods rank in the top two for all tasks except the Review task (Figure 2).

In the augmented setting, few-shot generation and zero-shot topic generation methods demonstrate good performance across all tasks. In BoolQ, EMO, and RTE tasks, zero-shot topic methods outperform other prompting methods. In SST-2 and NYT tasks, few-shot generation methods perform best. The performance of zero-shot methods is sub-optimal across all tasks.

In the five prompting methods we experimented with, zero-shot topic generation typically produces the most diverse dataset because different topic is sampled for each time during generation. Pure zero-shot methods generate the least diverse dataset, as the prompt remains the same for each generation. One-shot and few-shot methods also generate repeated examples due to the limitation of in-context examples. We found for most tasks, a diversity dataset tends to benefit model training. As shown in (Figure 2), in non-augmented setting pure zero-shot generation shows the worst performance for RTE, EMO, Review and SST-2 while zero-shot topic generation out-performs other methods (or close to other methods) for BoolQ, NYT, RTE and EMO task. This effect does not appear on all tasks as there might be other factors that impact the model performance. Meanwhile, the effect of diversity diminishes when we mix synthetic data with raw data. Therefore, training with both raw data and synthetic data could help when synthetic data is not diverse.

While not generating the most optimally diverse dataset, using one-shot or few-shot generation methods typically helps LLMs better understand the task description and generate examples similar to the original examples (Li, 2023; Song et al., 2022). In EMO and Review tasks, we observe the advantage of few-shot learning over other prompting methods. We suspect this is because both tasks are more subjective compared to the rest of the tasks, as the EMO contains twitter posts and Review task is made up of customer reviews and ratings.

In this section, we examine the diversity of our training data using inter-sample semantic similarity. To calculate this similarity, we use vector embedding proposed in (Reimers & Gurevych, 2019) and average the similarity score across all examples pairs following (Yu et al., 2023). Figure 4 displays the inter-sample similarity for each task, comparing data generated by five prompting methods. On the x-axis, we show the performance of the finetuned model using the 1000 synthetic data only. Figure 4 shows that for BoolQ, NYT, and SST-2, a lower inter-sample diversity results in a better F1 score. However, for other tasks, the correlation is weak due to the existence of outliers, especially for RTE, and the possible impact of other factors, such as task complexity. We also calculated the similarity between the synthetic data and the actual raw data using the same method and found that the synthetic data generated from five different prompting methods had similar similarity scores with the raw data. However, it is not clear whether synthetic data that closely resembles the raw data would lead to better model performance. This could be due to the limitations of our similarity measuring method, which only considers semantic similarity, as discussed in (Steck et al., 2024). Many NLP tasks rely on subtle contextual cues and nuanced wordings, such as in the SST-2 task, where changes to wording can affect the sentiment of the text more than contextual semantics. Our measurement does not account for other aspects of similarity, such as structural or lexical similarity, as discussed in (Wang et al., 2020; Ayeldeen et al., 2014). Lastly, due to the limited number of data points and the potential variation in synthetic data, it needs to be cautious to generalize our findings to our tasks or domains.

We have found that increasing the amount of synthetic data in our model training improves its performance. Figure 5 shows the relationship between the model’s performance (measured by the f1 score) on the y-axis and the total number of training data on the x-axis. In the augmented scenario, we mixed 100 raw data points with varying amounts of synthetic data. The performance is the average of the model’s f1 score over 5 prompting methods for each data size. For the raw data scenario, only real-world data was used in model training. Our graph indicates that raw data serves as an upper bound for the augmented setting in almost all tasks. Moreover, we observed that the marginal effect of performance gain with increasing training data is present in both raw and synthetic data. For BoolQ and SST-2 tasks, we observed this phenomenon at the same data size. As such, the raw data size at which marginal improvement of model performance appears can be used as a reference point when increasing the number of synthetic data.

There are two typical ways to generate a classification dataset: Condition on the Label and Left-to-Right (see Table 6). It is recommended to use Condition on the Label for each generation as it saves effort in parsing the label and avoids LLM generating unknown labels. It also provides the user control over the label distribution in the synthetic dataset.

It is worth noting that class-conditioned generations are more likely to introduce bias and reduce the difficulty of the synthetic example. When the class label is visible, LLM could leak the label information during content generation. In the BoolQ example, LLM hints the answer ”FALSE” via certain words in the question it generates (e.g. the word ”only”). In this case, rephrasing the question where the class label is hidden essentially performing left-to-right generation, which improves performance.

It is essential to provide topics or descriptions closely related to the use case when generating examples. Ensuring that the topics are relevant to the use case significantly improves the quality of generated data. For example, when creating examples from Twitter, it is beneficial to first generate common topics found on Twitter. On the other hand, when generating Amazon customer reviews, it is effective to generate an Amazon product catalog as a list of potential topics. This approach ensures that the synthetic data is more closely aligned with the target corpus, leading to better performance in classification tasks.

Generating synthetic data can be both time-consuming and resource-intensive. To maximize efficiency and ensure high-quality data, it is recommended to adopt an iterative approach. Initially, generate a small number of examples and evaluate their quality. If the quality of these initial data points is low, refine the prompt before generating more data. It is unlikely that simply generating more data points with the same prompt will magically produce high quality data.