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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21338v1
• Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 16:05:05 GMT
• Title: Text Analytics Evaluation Framework: A Case Study on LLMs and Social Media
• Abstract summary: We introduce a question-based evaluation framework.<n>We apply our benchmark on diverse Twitter datasets covering various NLP.<n>tasks, including sentiment analysis, hate speech detection, and emotion recognition.<n>Our results reveal that the performance depends heavily on input scale and the complexity of the data sources.
• Score: 4.065252374657746
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• Who Gets Cited Most? Benchmarking Long-Context Language Models on Scientific Articles [81.89404347890662]
  SciTrek is a novel question-answering benchmark designed to evaluate the long-context reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using scientific articles.<n>Our analysis reveals systematic shortcomings in models' abilities to perform basic numerical operations and accurately locate specific information in long contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T11:36:09Z)
• Beyond Isolated Dots: Benchmarking Structured Table Construction as Deep Knowledge Extraction [80.88654868264645]
  Arranged and Organized Extraction Benchmark designed to evaluate ability of large language models to comprehend fragmented documents.<n>AOE includes 11 carefully crafted tasks across three diverse domains, requiring models to generate context-specific schema tailored to varied input queries.<n>Results show that even the most advanced models struggled significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T06:37:51Z)
• An Evaluation of Large Language Models on Text Summarization Tasks Using Prompt Engineering Techniques [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to advance natural language processing with their ability to generate human-like text.<n>We present a systematic evaluation of six LLMs across four datasets: CNN/Daily Mail and NewsRoom (news), SAMSum (dialog), and ArXiv (scientific)<n>Our study evaluates the performance using the ROUGE and BERTScore metrics.<n>For Long documents, introduce a sentence-based chunking strategy that enables LLMs with shorter context windows to summarize extended inputs in multiple stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T15:34:05Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• LLMs as Data Annotators: How Close Are We to Human Performance [47.61698665650761]
  Manual annotation of data is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and costly.<n>In-context learning (ICL) in which some examples related to the task are given in the prompt can lead to inefficiencies and suboptimal model performance.<n>This paper presents experiments comparing several LLMs, considering different embedding models, across various datasets for the Named Entity Recognition (NER) task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T11:11:07Z)
• Latent Factor Models Meets Instructions: Goal-conditioned Latent Factor Discovery without Task Supervision [50.45597801390757]
  Instruct-LF is a goal-oriented latent factor discovery system.<n>It integrates instruction-following ability with statistical models to handle noisy datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:03:08Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• Revisit Input Perturbation Problems for LLMs: A Unified Robustness Evaluation Framework for Noisy Slot Filling Task [18.623619585980688]
  We propose a unified robustness evaluation framework based on the slot-filling task to evaluate the dialogue understanding capability of large language models. Specifically, we construct a input perturbation evaluation dataset, Noise-LLM, which contains five types of single perturbation and four types of mixed perturbation data. Our aim is to assess how well various robustness methods of LLMs perform in real-world noisy scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T10:22:05Z)
• Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review [34.12458948051519]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted numerous domains, including Software Engineering (SE) We select and analyze 395 research papers from January 2017 to January 2024 to answer four key research questions (RQs) From the answers to these RQs, we discuss the current state-of-the-art and trends, identifying gaps in existing research, and flagging promising areas for future study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T10:37:49Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

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.