跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2607.13304 · v2

Query Language Sensitivity in Automated Sentiment Scores of LLM Responses

首次提交 2026-07-15 06:12
版本更新 2026-11-01 17:19
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:43
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Automated scores are often used to summarize how large language models describe brands across prompts, providers, and languages. Such scores can vary because the answers differ, because the scoring instrument behaves differently across texts or languages, or for both reasons. We examine this measurement problem in 12,933 responses from a design crossing 20 stored brand labels, eight query languages, three provider aliases, and 15 prompt identifiers. The outcome is the signed winning-class confidence from a multilingual sentiment classifier: neutral winners are coded zero, while positive and negative winners receive signed confidence. A crossed linear mixed model fitted to all responses assigns 26.49% of fitted variance to query language and 1.46% to brand. An exploratory refit after excluding English assigns 5.07% to language and 2.23% to brand. These percentages have different denominators: total fitted variance falls by 65.08%, and absolute brand variance falls by 46.65%. English contains 591 negative classifier scores among 1,620 answers, compared with 77 among 11,313 answers in the other seven languages. The result shows that the original variance decomposition is highly sensitive to English inclusion. It does not identify a causal English effect or establish that English answers are more negative toward the brands. The classifier was trained for tweet sentiment, receives no separate target-brand condition, and English is the only study language represented in its documented sentiment fine-tuning set. Automated score differences should therefore be checked as properties of both the answers and the measurement instrument before they guide substantive conclusions.

作者备注:11 pages, 2 tables, 1 figure. Corrected analysis of stored automated sentiment scores, with exploratory language-exclusion sensitivity. Removes unsupported brand-ranking and query-budget prescriptions. No new human validation

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-11-01 17:19 · 最新观测版本

Query Language Sensitivity in Automated Sentiment Scores of LLM Responses

Automated scores are often used to summarize how large language models describe brands across prompts, providers, and languages. Such scores can vary because the answers differ, because the scoring instrument behaves differently across texts or languages, or for both reasons. We examine this measurement problem in 12,933 responses from a design crossing 20 stored brand labels, eight query languages, three provider aliases, and 15 prompt identifiers. The outcome is the signed winning-class confidence from a multilingual sentiment classifier: neutral winners are coded zero, while positive and negative winners receive signed confidence. A crossed linear mixed model fitted to all responses assigns 26.49% of fitted variance to query language and 1.46% to brand. An exploratory refit after excluding English assigns 5.07% to language and 2.23% to brand. These percentages have different denominators: total fitted variance falls by 65.08%, and absolute brand variance falls by 46.65%. English contains 591 negative classifier scores among 1,620 answers, compared with 77 among 11,313 answers in the other seven languages. The result shows that the original variance decomposition is highly sensitive to English inclusion. It does not identify a causal English effect or establish that English answers are more negative toward the brands. The classifier was trained for tweet sentiment, receives no separate target-brand condition, and English is the only study language represented in its documented sentiment fine-tuning set. Automated score differences should therefore be checked as properties of both the answers and the measurement instrument before they guide substantive conclusions.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗