Pith. sign in

REVIEW

ELECTRA and GPT-4o: Cost-Effective Partners for Sentiment Analysis

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.00062 v2 pith:2NJVF7TY submitted 2024-12-29 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords electragpt-4ofine-tunedgpt-4o-miniperformancesentimentbasecost
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Bidirectional transformers excel at sentiment analysis, and Large Language Models (LLM) are effective zero-shot learners. Might they perform better as a team? This paper explores collaborative approaches between ELECTRA and GPT-4o for three-way sentiment classification. We fine-tuned (FT) four models (ELECTRA Base/Large, GPT-4o/4o-mini) using a mix of reviews from Stanford Sentiment Treebank (SST) and DynaSent. We provided input from ELECTRA to GPT as: predicted label, probabilities, and retrieved examples. Sharing ELECTRA Base FT predictions with GPT-4o-mini significantly improved performance over either model alone (82.50 macro F1 vs. 79.14 ELECTRA Base FT, 79.41 GPT-4o-mini) and yielded the lowest cost/performance ratio (\$0.12/F1 point). However, when GPT models were fine-tuned, including predictions decreased performance. GPT-4o FT-M was the top performer (86.99), with GPT-4o-mini FT close behind (86.70) at much less cost (\$0.38 vs. \$1.59/F1 point). Our results show that augmenting prompts with predictions from fine-tuned encoders is an efficient way to boost performance, and a fine-tuned GPT-4o-mini is nearly as good as GPT-4o FT at 76% less cost. Both are affordable options for projects with limited resources.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools