Examining Independence in Ensemble Sentiment Analysis: A Study on the Limits of Large Language Models Using the Condorcet Jury Theorem

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00094v1
• Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 14:04:00 GMT
• Title: Examining Independence in Ensemble Sentiment Analysis: A Study on the Limits of Large Language Models Using the Condorcet Jury Theorem
• Authors: Baptiste Lefort, Eric Benhamou, Jean-Jacques Ohana, Beatrice Guez, David Saltiel, Thomas Jacquot,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores the application of the Condorcet Jury theorem to the domain of sentiment analysis. Our empirical study tests this theoretical framework by implementing a majority vote mechanism across different models. Contrary to expectations, the results reveal only marginal improvements in performance when incorporating larger models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper explores the application of the Condorcet Jury theorem to the domain of sentiment analysis, specifically examining the performance of various large language models (LLMs) compared to simpler natural language processing (NLP) models. The theorem posits that a majority vote classifier should enhance predictive accuracy, provided that individual classifiers' decisions are independent. Our empirical study tests this theoretical framework by implementing a majority vote mechanism across different models, including advanced LLMs such as ChatGPT 4. Contrary to expectations, the results reveal only marginal improvements in performance when incorporating larger models, suggesting a lack of independence among them. This finding aligns with the hypothesis that despite their complexity, LLMs do not significantly outperform simpler models in reasoning tasks within sentiment analysis, showing the practical limits of model independence in the context of advanced NLP tasks.

Related papers

• JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.99046112135311]
  We introduce JustLogic, a synthetically generated deductive reasoning benchmark for rigorous evaluation of Large Language Models. JustLogic is highly complex, capable of generating a diverse range of linguistic patterns, vocabulary, and argument structures. Our experimental results reveal that most state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs perform significantly worse than the human average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T15:49:10Z)
• What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis [81.15503859645149]
  In this paper, we aim to theoretically analyze the impact of in-context demonstrations on large language models' reasoning performance. We propose a straightforward, generalizable, and low-complexity demonstration selection method named LMS3.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T11:38:11Z)
• Semantic Self-Consistency: Enhancing Language Model Reasoning via Semantic Weighting [5.110108181663884]
  Wang et al.'s self-consistency framework reveals that sampling multiple rationales before taking a majority vote reliably improves model performance across various closed-answer reasoning tasks. Our work introduces semantic self-consistency, enhancing this approach by incorporating and analyzing both the reasoning paths of these rationales in addition to their final decisions before taking a majority vote.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T11:58:48Z)
• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• Dynamic Sentiment Analysis with Local Large Language Models using Majority Voting: A Study on Factors Affecting Restaurant Evaluation [0.0]
  This study introduces a majority voting mechanism to a sentiment analysis model using local language models. By a series of three analyses of online reviews on restaurant evaluations, we demonstrate that majority voting with multiple attempts produces more robust results than using a large model with a single attempt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T00:28:04Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Automatic benchmarking of large multimodal models via iterative experiment programming [71.78089106671581]
  We present APEx, the first framework for automatic benchmarking of LMMs. Given a research question expressed in natural language, APEx leverages a large language model (LLM) and a library of pre-specified tools to generate a set of experiments for the model at hand. The report drives the testing procedure: based on the current status of the investigation, APEx chooses which experiments to perform and whether the results are sufficient to draw conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T06:43:46Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We? [8.840750655261251]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks. Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T08:22:52Z)
• "You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator": Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation [60.863629647985526]
  We examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure. We find that models can reliably reproduce the basic format of AMR, and can often capture core event, argument, and modifier structure. Overall, our findings indicate that these models out-of-the-box can capture aspects of semantic structure, but there remain key limitations in their ability to support fully accurate semantic analyses or parses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T21:47:59Z)

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.