# Do Large Language Models Possess Sensitive to Sentiment?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02370 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.02370/

## 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 (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02311/) (2022)
- [HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1905.07830/) (2019)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [Harnessing the Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13712/) (2023)
- [ToolQA: A Dataset for LLM Question Answering with External Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13304/) (2023)
- [When Scaling Meets LLM Finetuning: The Effect of Data, Model and Finetuning Method](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17193/) (2024)
- [A Confederacy of Models: a Comprehensive Evaluation of LLMs on Creative Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08433/) (2023)
- [Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04618/) (2023)
- [TofuEval: Evaluating Hallucinations of LLMs on Topic-Focused Dialogue Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13249/) (2024)
- [Automating Customer Service using LangChain: Building custom open-source GPT Chatbot for organizations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05421/) (2023)
- ["It's a Fair Game", or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.11653/) (2023)
- [Generative AI Text Classification using Ensemble LLM Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07755/) (2023)
- [HumanEvo: An Evolution-aware Benchmark for More Realistic Evaluation of Repository-level Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06918/) (2024)
- [DTLLM-VLT: Diverse Text Generation for Visual Language Tracking Based on LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12139/) (2024)
- [MM-SAP: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Self-Awareness of Multimodal Large Language Models in Perception](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07529/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Large Language Models for Subjective Language Understanding: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07959/) (2025)
- [Exploring Persona Sentiment Sensitivity in Personalized Dialogue Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11423/) (2025)
- [Using LLMs to Infer Non-Binary COVID-19 Sentiments of Chinese Micro-bloggers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.05423/) (2025)

## 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.