Do Large Language Models Possess Sensitive to Sentiment?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently displayed their extraordinary capabilities in language understanding. However, how to comprehensively assess the sentiment capabilities of LLMs continues to be a challenge. This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to detect and react to sentiment in text modal. As the integration of LLMs into diverse applications is on the rise, it becomes highly critical to comprehend their sensitivity to emotional tone, as it can influence the user experience and the efficacy of sentiment-driven tasks. We conduct a series of experiments to evaluate the performance of several prominent LLMs in identifying and responding appropriately to sentiments like positive, negative, and neutral emotions. The models' outputs are analyzed across various sentiment benchmarks, and their responses are compared with human evaluations. Our discoveries indicate that although LLMs show a basic sensitivity to sentiment, there are substantial variations in their accuracy and consistency, emphasizing the requirement for further enhancements in their training processes to better capture subtle emotional cues. Take an example in our findings, in some cases, the models might wrongly classify a strongly positive sentiment as neutral, or fail to recognize sarcasm or irony in the text. Such misclassifications highlight the complexity of sentiment analysis and the areas where the models need to be refined. Another aspect is that different LLMs might perform differently on the same set of data, depending on their architecture and training datasets. This variance calls for a more in-depth study of the factors that contribute to the performance differences and how they can be optimized.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2024.
Builds on
19 of 40 references.
References · 19
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,326
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
- 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,822
- 2023Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyondcited by 411
- 2023ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External Toolscited by 274
- 2024When Scaling Meets LLM Finetuning: The Effect of Data, Model and Finetuning Methodcited by 204
- 2023A Confederacy of Models: a Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs on Creative Writingcited by 99
- 2023Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluationscited by 97
7 more
- 2024TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarizationcited by 66
- 2023Automating Customer Service using LangChain: Building custom open-source GPT Chatbot for organizationscited by 61
- 2023"It's a Fair Game", or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agentscited by 60
- 2023Generative AI Text Classification using Ensemble LLM Approachescited by 29
- 2024HumanEvo: An Evolution-aware Benchmark for More Realistic Evaluation of Repository-level Code Generationcited by 28
- 2024DTLLM-VLT: Diverse Text Generation for Visual Language Tracking Based on LLMcited by 24
- 2024MM-SAP: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Self-Awareness of Multimodal Large Language Models in Perceptioncited by 21
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3.
3 papers.