The generative large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for data augmentation tasks, where text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used for classifier fine-tuning. Previous studies have compared LLM-based augmentations with established augmentation techniques, but the results are contradictory: some report superiority of LLM-based augmentations, while other only marginal increases (and even decreases) in performance of downstream classifiers. A research that would confirm a clear cost-benefit advantage of LLMs over more established augmentation methods is largely missing. To study if (and when) is the LLM-based augmentation advantageous, we compared the effects of recent LLM augmentation methods with established ones on 6 datasets, 3 classifiers and 2 fine-tuning methods. We also varied the number of seeds and collected samples to better explore the downstream model accuracy space. Finally, we performed a cost-benefit analysis and show that LLM-based methods are worthy of deployment only when very small number of seeds is used. Moreover, in many cases, established methods lead to similar or better model accuracies.

The latest generative large language models (LLMs) have found their application in data augmentation tasks, where small numbers of text samples are LLM-paraphrased and then used to fine-tune downstream models. However, more research is needed to assess how different prompts, seed data selection strategies, filtering methods, or model settings affect the quality of paraphrased data (and downstream models). In this study, we investigate three text diversity incentive methods well established in crowdsourcing: taboo words, hints by previous outlier solutions, and chaining on previous outlier solutions. Using these incentive methods as part of instructions to LLMs augmenting text datasets, we measure their effects on generated texts’ lexical diversity and downstream model performance. We compare the effects over 5 different LLMs, 6 datasets and 2 downstream models. We show that diversity is most increased by taboo words, but downstream model performance is highest with hints.

While fine-tuning of pre-trained language models generally helps to overcome the lack of labelled training samples, it also displays model performance instability. This instability mainly originates from randomness in initialisation or data shuffling. To address this, researchers either modify the training process or augment the available samples, which typically results in increased computational costs. We propose a new mitigation strategy, called **Delayed Ensemble with Noisy Interpolation (DENI)**, that leverages the strengths of ensembling, noise regularisation and model interpolation, while retaining computational efficiency. We compare DENI with 9 representative mitigation strategies across 3 models, 4 tuning strategies and 7 text classification datasets. We show that: 1) DENI outperforms the best performing mitigation strategy (Ensemble), while using only a fraction of its cost; 2) the mitigation strategies are beneficial for parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods, outperforming full fine-tuning in specific cases; and 3) combining DENI with data augmentation often leads to even more effective instability mitigation.

The emergence of generative large language models (LLMs) raises the question: what will be its impact on crowdsourcing? Traditionally, crowdsourcing has been used for acquiring solutions to a wide variety of human-intelligence tasks, including ones involving text generation, modification or evaluation. For some of these tasks, models like ChatGPT can potentially substitute human workers. In this study, we investigate whether this is the case for the task of paraphrase generation for intent classification. We apply data collection methodology of an existing crowdsourcing study (similar scale, prompts and seed data) using ChatGPT and Falcon-40B. We show that ChatGPT-created paraphrases are more diverse and lead to at least as robust models.