ChatGPT vs Gemini vs LLaMA on Multilingual Sentiment Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01715v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 23:15:45 GMT
• Title: ChatGPT vs Gemini vs LLaMA on Multilingual Sentiment Analysis
• Authors: Alessio Buscemi and Daniele Proverbio
• Abstract summary: We constructed nuanced and ambiguous scenarios, we translated them in 10 languages, and we predicted their associated sentiment using popular LLMs. The results are validated against post-hoc human responses. This work provides a standardised methodology for automated sentiment analysis evaluation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated sentiment analysis using Large Language Model (LLM)-based models like ChatGPT, Gemini or LLaMA2 is becoming widespread, both in academic research and in industrial applications. However, assessment and validation of their performance in case of ambiguous or ironic text is still poor. In this study, we constructed nuanced and ambiguous scenarios, we translated them in 10 languages, and we predicted their associated sentiment using popular LLMs. The results are validated against post-hoc human responses. Ambiguous scenarios are often well-coped by ChatGPT and Gemini, but we recognise significant biases and inconsistent performance across models and evaluated human languages. This work provides a standardised methodology for automated sentiment analysis evaluation and makes a call for action to further improve the algorithms and their underlying data, to improve their performance, interpretability and applicability.

Related papers

• Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness [30.632260870411177]
  Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly penetrated into people's work and daily lives over the past few years. This thesis focuses on the correctness, non-toxicity, and fairness of LLMs from both software testing and natural language processing perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-31T22:21:04Z)
• How Does Quantization Affect Multilingual LLMs? [50.867324914368524]
  Quantization techniques are widely used to improve inference speed and deployment of large language models. We conduct a thorough analysis of quantized multilingual LLMs, focusing on performance across languages and at varying scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:39:40Z)
• Advancing Annotation of Stance in Social Media Posts: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and Crowd Sourcing [2.936331223824117]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated text annotation in social media posts has garnered significant interest. We analyze the performance of eight open-source and proprietary LLMs for annotating the stance expressed in social media posts. A significant finding of our study is that the explicitness of text expressing a stance plays a critical role in how faithfully LLMs' stance judgments match humans'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:26:07Z)
• Can Large Language Models Automatically Score Proficiency of Written Essays? [3.993602109661159]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transformer-based models that demonstrate extraordinary capabilities on various tasks. We test the ability of LLMs, given their powerful linguistic knowledge, to analyze and effectively score written essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-10T09:39:00Z)
• SOUL: Towards Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language [96.74878032417054]
  We propose a new task called Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language (SOUL) SOUL aims to evaluate sentiment understanding through two subtasks: Review (RC) and Justification Generation (JG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:48:48Z)
• Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactions [116.67206980096513]
  We introduce CheckMate, a prototype platform for humans to interact with and evaluate large language models (LLMs) We conduct a study with CheckMate to evaluate three language models (InstructGPT, ChatGPT, and GPT-4) as assistants in proving undergraduate-level mathematics. We derive a taxonomy of human behaviours and uncover that despite a generally positive correlation, there are notable instances of divergence between correctness and perceived helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-02T17:12:25Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT [65.268245109828]
  This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T01:19:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.