We consider the task of generating structured representations of text using large language models (LLMs). We focus on tables and mind maps as representative modalities. Tables are more organized way of representing data, while mind maps provide a visually dynamic and flexible approach, particularly suitable for sparse content. Despite the effectiveness of LLMs on different tasks, we show that current models struggle with generating structured outputs. In response, we present effective prompting strategies for both of these tasks. We introduce a taxonomy of problems around factuality, global and local structure, common to both modalities and propose a set of critiques to tackle these issues resulting in an absolute improvement in accuracy of +37pp (79%) for mind maps and +15pp (78%) for tables. To evaluate semantic coverage of generated structured representations we propose Auto-QA, and we verify the adequacy of Auto-QA using SQuAD dataset. We further evaluate the usefulness of structured representations via a text comprehension user study. The results show a significant reduction in comprehension time compared to text when using table (42.9%) and mind map (31.9%), without loss in accuracy.

The recent success of prompting large language models like GPT-3 has led to a paradigm shift in NLP research. In this paper, we study its impact on text summarization, focusing on the classic benchmark domain of news summarization. First, we investigate how GPT-3 compares against fine-tuned models trained on large summarization datasets. We show that not only do humans overwhelmingly prefer GPT-3 summaries, prompted using only a task description, but these also do not suffer from common dataset-specific issues such as poor factuality. Next, we study what this means for evaluation, particularly the role of gold standard test sets. Our experiments show that both reference-based and reference-free automatic metrics cannot reliably evaluate GPT-3 summaries. Finally, we evaluate models on a setting beyond generic summarization, specifically keyword-based summarization, and show how dominant fine-tuning approaches compare to prompting. To support further research, we release: (a) a corpus of 10K generated summaries from fine-tuned and prompt-based models across 4 standard summarization benchmarks, (b) 1K human preference judgments comparing different systems for generic- and keyword-based summarization.