Large language models (LLMs) have been applied to a wide range of data-to-text generation tasks, including tables, graphs, and time-series numerical data-to-text settings. While research on generating prompts for structured data such as tables and graphs is gaining momentum, in-depth investigations into prompting for time-series numerical data are lacking. Therefore, this study explores various input representations, including sequences of tokens and structured formats such as HTML, LaTeX, and Python-style codes. In our experiments, we focus on the task of Market Comment Generation, which involves taking a numerical sequence of stock prices as input and generating a corresponding market comment. Contrary to our expectations, the results show that prompts resembling programming languages yield better outcomes, whereas those similar to natural languages and longer formats, such as HTML and LaTeX, are less effective. Our findings offer insights into creating effective prompts for tasks that generate text from numerical sequences.

Argument Mining (AM) aims to uncover the argumentative structures within a text. Previous methods require several subtasks, such as span identification, component classification, and relation classification. Consequently, these methods need rule-based postprocessing to derive argumentative structures from the output of each subtask. This approach adds to the complexity of the model and expands the search space of the hyperparameters. To address this difficulty, we propose a simple yet strong method based on a text-to-text generation approach using a pretrained encoder-decoder language model. Our method simultaneously generates argumentatively annotated text for spans, components, and relations, eliminating the need for task-specific postprocessing and hyperparameter tuning. Furthermore, because it is a straightforward text-to-text generation method, we can easily adapt our approach to various types of argumentative structures.Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, as it achieves state-of-the-art performance on three different types of benchmark datasets: the Argument-annotated Essays Corpus (AAEC), AbstRCT, and the Cornell eRulemaking Corpus (CDCP).