PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check

Zhang, Wenxuan, Deng, Yue, Liu, Bing, Pan, Sinno Jialin, Bing, Lidong·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Sentiment analysis (SA) has been a long-standing research area in natural language processing. It can offer rich insights into human sentiments and opinions and has thus seen considerable interest from both academia and industry. With the advent of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, there is a great potential for their employment on SA problems. However, the extent to which existing LLMs can be leveraged for different sentiment analysis tasks remains unclear. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive investigation into the capabilities of LLMs in performing various sentiment analysis tasks, from conventional sentiment classification to aspect-based sentiment analysis and multifaceted analysis of subjective texts. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets. Our study reveals that while LLMs demonstrate satisfactory performance in simpler tasks, they lag behind in more complex tasks requiring deeper understanding or structured sentiment information. However, LLMs significantly outperform SLMs in few-shot learning settings, suggesting their potential when annotation resources are limited. We also highlight the limitations of current evaluation practices in assessing LLMs' SA abilities and propose a novel benchmark, \textsc{SentiEval}, for a more comprehensive and realistic evaluation. Data and code during our investigations are available at \url{https://github.com/DAMO-NLP-SG/LLM-Sentiment}.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.15005

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In low-resource learning environments, LLMs exhibit significant advantages over small language models.

    “In low-resource learning environments, LLMs exhibit significant advantages over small language models [251], but the ability of ChatGPT to understand low-resource languages is limited [6].”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [251]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, W., Deng, Y., Liu, B., Pan, S. J., & Bing, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
1
Type
Preprint

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review