# So Many Opinions, So Many LLMs: Comparing Large Language Models to Traditional Machine Learning for Open- Ended Survey Analysis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11890 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.11890/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.02311/) (2022)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.12712/) (2023)
- [GQA: Training Generalized Multi-Query Transformer Models from Multi-Head Checkpoints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13245/) (2023)
- [A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.01933/) (2018)
- [On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.12095/) (2023)
- [Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: Current Challenges and New Directions in Sentiment Analysis Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00357/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Open-ended surveys offer valuable insights, but they are notoriously difficult to analyze at scale. Building on previous work that employed traditional machine learning to classify text ("So Many Responses, So Little Time: A Machine-Learning Approach to Analyzing Open-Ended Survey Data") [1], this study investigates how different large language models (LLMs) understand and analyze NSSE open-ended survey responses. We focus on several cutting-edge LLMSs-OpenAI's GPT series, Twitter-roBERTa-base model, and Meta's LLaMA-and compare their performance to the previous machine learning models in tasks like sentiment analysis and thematic classification. Our research analysis assesses model agreement, classification accuracy, and interpretability of reasoning. The findings reveal that current LLMs routinely beat classic machine learning models in classification accuracy, particularly in understanding complex mood and theme patterns in student replies. While LLMs have superior accuracy, they differ greatly in how explicitly and consistently they justify their predictions and apply category boundaries. These distinctions highlight crucial trade-offs when using LLMs for qualitative analysis: increased predictive strength comes with issues in consistency and explainability. Our findings illustrate the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing various LLMs for large-scale qualitative research, and we provide practical advice for researchers looking to balance automation and interpretive rigor.