mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Text Analytics Evaluation Framework: A Case Study on LLMs and Social Media

arXiv 2605.21338 ↗First posted 20 May 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

LLMs have demonstrated exceptional proficiency in a wide range of NLP tasks. However, a notable gap remains in practical data analysis scenarios, particularly when LLMs are required to process long sequences of unstructured documents, such as news feeds or, as specifically addressed in this paper, social media posts. To empirically assess the effectiveness of LLMs in this setting, we introduce a question-based evaluation framework comprising 470 manually curated questions designed to evaluate LLMs' semantic understanding and reasoning abilities over aggregated text data. We apply our benchmark on diverse Twitter datasets covering various NLP tasks, including sentiment analysis, hate speech detection, and emotion recognition. Our results reveal that the performance depends heavily on input scale and the complexity of the data sources, declining noticeably in multi-label or target-dependent scenarios. In addition, as task complexity increases, performance drops progressively from basic semantic existence identification to more demanding operations such as comparison, counting, and calculation. Furthermore, as the input size grows beyond 500 instances, we identify a common limitation across LLMs, particularly Open-weights models: performance degrades substantially, especially on numerical tasks. These findings highlight critical architectural bottlenecks in current LLMs for performing rigorous quantitative analysis over large text collections.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.

Builds on

14 of 27 references.

References · 14

  1. 2019ELI5: Long Form Question Answeringcited by 575
  2. 2022DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generationcited by 452
  3. 2020TweetEval: Unified Benchmark and Comparative Evaluation for Tweet Classificationcited by 417
  4. 2019SemEval-2017 Task 4: Sentiment Analysis in Twittercited by 210
  5. 2019SemEval-2019 Task 6: Identifying and Categorizing Offensive Language in Social Media (OffensEval)cited by 207
  6. 2022SCROLLS: Standardized CompaRison Over Long Language Sequencescited by 170
  7. 2025DABstep: Data Agent Benchmark for Multi-step Reasoningcited by 46
  8. 2025Oolong: Evaluating Long Context Reasoning and Aggregation Capabilitiescited by 40
  9. 2023Text2Analysis: A Benchmark of Table Question Answering with Advanced Data Analysis and Unclear Queriescited by 38
  10. 2024NumeroLogic: Number Encoding for Enhanced LLMs' Numerical Reasoningcited by 31
  11. 2023Evaluating LLMs on Document-Based QA: Exact Answer Selection and Numerical Extraction using Cogtale datasetcited by 11
  12. 2023SuperTweetEval: A Challenging, Unified and Heterogeneous Benchmark for Social Media NLP Researchcited by 9
2 more
  1. 2025StatLLM: A Dataset for Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models in Statistical Analysiscited by 8
  2. 2026Understanding LLM Performance Degradation in Multi-Instance Processing: The Roles of Instance Count and Context Lengthcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Neither Valid nor Reliable? Investigating the Use of LLMs as Judges
  2. 2023Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
  3. 2023NLPBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Solving NLP Problems
  4. 2026SCORE: Specificity, Context Utilization, Robustness, and Relevance for Reference-Free LLM Evaluation
  5. 2023Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks
  6. 2026LLM as a Meta-Judge: Synthetic Data for NLP Evaluation Metric Validation
  7. 2026Can LLM Reasoning Be Trusted? A Comparative Study: Using Human Benchmarking on Statistical Tasks
  8. 2023A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets