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

• 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)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Synergies between Disentanglement and Sparsity: Generalization and Identifiability in Multi-Task Learning [79.83792914684985]
  We prove a new identifiability result that provides conditions under which maximally sparse base-predictors yield disentangled representations. Motivated by this theoretical result, we propose a practical approach to learn disentangled representations based on a sparsity-promoting bi-level optimization problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-26T21:02:09Z)
• ThinkSum: Probabilistic reasoning over sets using large language models [18.123895485602244]
  We propose a two-stage probabilistic inference paradigm, ThinkSum, which reasons over sets of objects or facts in a structured manner. We demonstrate the possibilities and advantages of ThinkSum on the BIG-bench suite of LLM evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T00:34:01Z)

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.