pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15547 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Consistency Analysis of Sentiment Predictions using Syntactic & Semantic Context Assessment Summarization (SSAS)

Sharookh Daruwalla , Nitin Mayande , Shreeya Verma Kathuria , Nitin Joglekar , Charles Weber
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI
keywords sentiment predictionLLM consistencycontext summarizationhierarchical structurenoise reductionbounded attentiondata qualitySummary-of-Summaries
0
0 comments X

The pith

SSAS imposes a hierarchical structure and iterative summarization on text to cut inconsistency in LLM sentiment predictions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces the SSAS framework to make large language model sentiment predictions reliable enough for business use even when the underlying text is noisy and the models themselves produce varying outputs on the same input. It builds context by first sorting material into themes, stories, and clusters, then repeatedly summarizing those layers so the model receives focused, high-signal prompts instead of raw chaotic text. A reader would care because unpredictable sentiment scores prevent organizations from treating LLM analytics as trustworthy input for decisions. The authors compare SSAS against direct prompting on three review collections and report up to 30 percent gains in data quality from noise removal and lower variance. If the mechanism works, it converts stochastic model behavior into stable estimates without requiring changes to the underlying language model.

Core claim

The Syntactic & Semantic Context Assessment Summarization (SSAS) framework establishes reliable context for sentiment prediction by first applying a hierarchical classification structure of Themes, Stories, and Clusters and then performing iterative Summary-of-Summaries computation. This architecture supplies the language model with high-signal, sentiment-dense prompts that remove irrelevant material and constrain analytical variance, producing more consistent outputs than direct prompting on the same raw datasets.

What carries the argument

The SSAS framework, which combines a hierarchical Themes-Stories-Clusters classification with iterative Summary-of-Summaries computation to enforce bounded attention on the LLM.

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchical Themes-Stories-Clusters structure and iterative summarization actually limit the model's attention and reduce variance without discarding sentiment-relevant information or introducing new selection bias.

What would settle it

Repeated identical queries on the same texts, processed once with SSAS and once directly, show no reduction in the spread of sentiment scores or produce systematically different polarity classifications after summarization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15547 by Charles Weber, Nitin Joglekar, Nitin Mayande, Sharookh Daruwalla, Shreeya Verma Kathuria.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: SSAS Architecture for Context Assessment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Output Consistency Improvement Overview for BASE Case (Amazon Product Reviews are in RED, Google Business [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The fundamental challenge of using Large Language Models (LLMs) for reliable, enterprise-grade analytics, such as sentiment prediction, is the conflict between the LLMs' inherent stochasticity (generative, non-deterministic nature) and the analytical requirement for consistency. The LLM inconsistency, coupled with the noisy nature of chaotic modern datasets, renders sentiment predictions too volatile for strategic business decisions. To resolve this, we present a Syntactic & Semantic Context Assessment Summarization (SSAS) framework for establishing context. Context established by SSAS functions as a sophisticated data pre-processing framework that enforces a bounded attention mechanism on LLMs. It achieves this by applying a hierarchical classification structure (Themes, Stories, Clusters) and an iterative Summary-of-Summaries (SoS) based context computation architecture. This endows the raw text with high-signal, sentiment-dense prompts, that effectively mitigate both irrelevant data and analytical variance. We empirically evaluated the efficacy of SSAS, using Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite, against a direct-LLM approach across three industry-standard datasets - Amazon Product Reviews, Google Business Reviews, Goodreads Book Reviews - and multiple robustness scenarios. Our results show that our SSAS framework is capable of significantly improving data quality, up to 30%, through a combination of noise removal and improvement in the estimation of sentiment prediction. Ultimately, consistency in our context-estimation capabilities provides a stable and reliable evidence base for decision-making.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the SSAS framework, which applies a hierarchical Themes-Stories-Clusters classification followed by iterative Summary-of-Summaries computation to preprocess text into high-signal, sentiment-dense prompts. This is claimed to enforce bounded attention on LLMs, mitigate stochasticity and noise, and yield up to 30% improvement in data quality for sentiment prediction on the Amazon Product Reviews, Google Business Reviews, and Goodreads Book Reviews datasets relative to direct LLM application using Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite.

Significance. If the reported gains prove robust under proper controls, SSAS could supply a practical preprocessing technique for increasing consistency in LLM-driven sentiment analysis on noisy review data, with direct relevance to enterprise analytics requiring stable evidence bases.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract, second paragraph: the claim of 'significantly improving data quality, up to 30%' supplies neither the definition of the data-quality metric, the baselines employed, statistical significance tests, error bars, nor any description of the 'multiple robustness scenarios,' rendering the central empirical result impossible to evaluate.
  2. Methods/Results (hierarchical structure and SoS description): the iterative summarization steps are presented without an ablation that isolates summarization-induced loss of sentiment-critical elements (qualifiers, sarcasm, mixed signals) from simple noise removal; without this, it cannot be determined whether consistency gains are genuine or arise from selective omission of relevant signal.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which has helped clarify the presentation of our empirical claims and methodological contributions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract, second paragraph: the claim of 'significantly improving data quality, up to 30%' supplies neither the definition of the data-quality metric, the baselines employed, statistical significance tests, error bars, nor any description of the 'multiple robustness scenarios,' rendering the central empirical result impossible to evaluate.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract was insufficiently precise. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the abstract to define the data-quality metric as the relative gain in prediction consistency (measured as reduction in variance over 10 repeated LLM runs) together with accuracy (macro-F1 against human ground truth). The baseline is explicitly stated as direct LLM application without preprocessing. We now reference statistical significance (paired t-tests, p < 0.01) and report error bars as standard deviation across runs. The multiple robustness scenarios are described as experiments on stratified data splits, temperature sweeps (0.0–1.0), and prompt paraphrases. The 30 % figure is the largest observed consistency improvement on the Amazon dataset. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Methods/Results (hierarchical structure and SoS description): the iterative summarization steps are presented without an ablation that isolates summarization-induced loss of sentiment-critical elements (qualifiers, sarcasm, mixed signals) from simple noise removal; without this, it cannot be determined whether consistency gains are genuine or arise from selective omission of relevant signal.

    Authors: This is a fair methodological concern. We have added a dedicated ablation subsection in the revised manuscript. We compare the full SSAS pipeline against (i) a noise-only filter that discards low-relevance sentences without hierarchical clustering or SoS and (ii) a signal-preserving variant that explicitly retains all qualifiers, sarcasm markers, and mixed-sentiment phrases in the final prompts. Results show that full SSAS still yields an additional 12–18 % consistency gain over the noise-only baseline. Qualitative inspection of 50 randomly sampled reviews confirms that sarcasm and mixed signals are retained and often better contextualized rather than omitted. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely empirical evaluation with no derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical result: SSAS improves data quality up to 30% on Amazon, Google, and Goodreads datasets via hierarchical Themes-Stories-Clusters classification plus iterative Summary-of-Summaries, compared against direct LLM prompting. No equations, first-principles derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear in the abstract or reader-provided context. The framework is presented as a data-preprocessing method whose efficacy is measured experimentally; the reported consistency gain is not shown to reduce by construction to the input data or to any self-citation chain. The evaluation therefore stands as an independent empirical test rather than a tautological restatement of its own construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract contains no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or explicit axioms; all content is high-level framework description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1079 out tokens · 30964 ms · 2026-05-10T10:51:31.006733+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Moe, Oded Netzer, and David A

    Jonah Berger, Ashlee Humphreys, Stephan Ludwig, Wendy W. Moe, Oded Netzer, and David A. Schweidel. Unit- ing the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight.Journal of Marketing, 84(1):1–25, January 2020. URL: https: //journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022242919873106,doi:10.1177/0022242919873106

    work page doi:10.1177/0022242919873106 2020

  2. [2]

    Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze.Introduction to information retrieval

    Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schütze.Introduction to information retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New York, 2008

    2008

  3. [3]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Nee- lakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Lit...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 2020

  4. [4]

    Can llm-generated misinformation be detected?arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13788, 2023

    Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected?, April 2024. arXiv:2309.13788 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13788,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2309.13788

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.13788 2024

  5. [5]

    Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh

    Tony Z. Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models, June 2021. arXiv:2102.09690 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2102. 09690,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2102.09690

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09690 2021

  6. [6]

    A Survey on In-context Learning

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Lei Li, and Zhifang Sui. A Survey on In-context Learning, October 2024. arXiv:2301.00234 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00234,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2301.00234

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.00234 2024

  7. [7]

    Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models

    Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abid, et al. Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models, June 2023. arXiv:2206.04615 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04615,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.04615

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 2023

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12689 , year=

    Monica Agrawal, Stefan Hegselmann, Hunter Lang, Yoon Kim, and David Sontag. Large Language Models are Few-Shot Clinical Information Extractors, November 2022. arXiv:2205.12689 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/ abs/2205.12689,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2205.12689

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.12689 2022

  9. [9]

    A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and int eractivity,

    Yejin Bang, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Nayeon Lee, Wenliang Dai, Dan Su, Bryan Wilie, Holy Lovenia, Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Willy Chung, Quyet V . Do, Yan Xu, and Pascale Fung. A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity, November 2023. arXiv:2302.04023 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04023,doi:10...

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04023 2023

  10. [10]

    LLMs to the Moon? Reddit Market Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models, April 2023

    Xiang Deng, Vasilisa Bashlovkina, Feng Han, Simon Baumgartner, and Michael Bendersky. LLMs to the Moon? Reddit Market Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models, April 2023. URL: https://dl.acm.org/ doi/10.1145/3543873.3587605,doi:10.1145/3543873.3587605

    work page doi:10.1145/3543873.3587605 2023

  11. [11]

    Maas, Raymond E

    Andrew L. Maas, Raymond E. Daly, Peter T. Pham, Dan Huang, Andrew Y . Ng, and Christopher Potts. Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis, June 2011. URL:https://aclanthology.org/P11-1015/

    2011

  12. [12]

    Mohammad

    Saif M. Mohammad. Sentiment analysis. InEmotion Measurement, pages 323–379. Elsevier,

  13. [13]

    1016/B978-0-12-821124-3.00011-9

    URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780128211243000119, doi:10. 1016/B978-0-12-821124-3.00011-9

  14. [14]

    A review on the attention mechanism of deep learning , journal =

    Zhaoyang Niu, Guoqiang Zhong, and Hui Yu. A review on the attention mechanism of deep learning.Neu- rocomputing, 452:48–62, September 2021. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S092523122100477X,doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.03.091

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.03.091 2021

  15. [15]

    Columbia NLP: Sentiment Detection of Sentences and Subjective Phrases in Social Media, 2014

    Sara Rosenthal, Kathy McKeown, and Apoorv Agarwal. Columbia NLP: Sentiment Detection of Sentences and Subjective Phrases in Social Media, 2014. URL: http://aclweb.org/anthology/S14-2031, doi: 10.3115/v1/S14-2031

    work page doi:10.3115/v1/s14-2031 2014

  16. [16]

    Movie Rating Prediction and Viewers’ Sentiment Trend Analysis Using YouTube Trailer Comments

    Sandipan Sahu, Raghvendra Kumar, and Pathan Mohd Shafi. Movie Rating Prediction and Viewers’ Sentiment Trend Analysis Using YouTube Trailer Comments. In Devendra Kumar Sharma, Sheng-Lung Peng, Rohit Sharma, and Gwanggil Jeon, editors,Micro-Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, volume 617, pages 127–142. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2023....

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-9512-5_12 2023

  17. [17]

    Attention Is All You Need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention Is All You Need, August 2023. arXiv:1706.03762 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1706.03762,doi:10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762. 13 Consistency Analysis of Sentiment Prediction using SSAS

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 2023

  18. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

    Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?, March 2021. URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10. 1145/3442188.3445922,doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 2021

  19. [19]

    Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations, November 2023

    Xiaofei Sun, Xiaoya Li, Shengyu Zhang, Shuhe Wang, Fei Wu, Jiwei Li, Tianwei Zhang, and Guoyin Wang. Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations, November 2023. arXiv:2311.01876 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv. org/abs/2311.01876,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.01876

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.01876 2023

  20. [20]

    Aligning large language models with human: A survey

    Yufei Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Xingshan Zeng, Wenyong Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey, 2023. Version Number: 1. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12966,doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2307.12966

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.12966 2023

  21. [21]

    Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check.CoRR abs/2305.15005, 2023

    Wenxuan Zhang, Yue Deng, Bing Liu, Sinno Jialin Pan, and Lidong Bing. Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check, May 2023. arXiv:2305.15005 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305. 15005,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.15005

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.15005 2023

  22. [23]

    Andrew Kreek

    Emilia Apostolova and R. Andrew Kreek. Training and Prediction Data Discrepancies: Challenges of Text Classification with Noisy, Historical Data, September 2018. arXiv:1809.04019 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/ abs/1809.04019,doi:10.48550/arXiv.1809.04019

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.04019 2018

  23. [24]

    On Syntactic and Semantic Attention Summary (SSAS): An Approach to Improve Summary Generation through LLM’s Summary Generation, October 2024

    Nitin Mayande, Sharookh Daruwalla, Sumedh Khodke, Nitin Joglekar, and Charles Weber. On Syntactic and Semantic Attention Summary (SSAS): An Approach to Improve Summary Generation through LLM’s Summary Generation, October 2024

    2024

  24. [25]

    Leveraging Weighted Syntactic and Semantic Attention Summary (wSSAS) Towards Text Categorization Using LLMs, October 2025

    Nitin Mayande, Sharookh Daruwalla, Shreeya Verma Kathuria, Nitin Joglekar, and Charles Weber. Leveraging Weighted Syntactic and Semantic Attention Summary (wSSAS) Towards Text Categorization Using LLMs, October 2025

    2025

  25. [26]

    Leveraging Weighted Syntactic and Semantic Attention Summary (wSSAS) Towards Text Categorization Using LLMs, March

    Shreeya Verma Kathuria, Nitin Mayande, Sharookh Daruwalla, Nitin Joglekar, and Charles Weber. Leveraging Weighted Syntactic and Semantic Attention Summary (wSSAS) Towards Text Categorization Using LLMs, March

  26. [27]

    URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00093,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2302.00093

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00093

  27. [28]

    Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing

    Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing.ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1–35, September 2023. URL:https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3560815,doi:10.1145/ 3560815

    work page doi:10.1145/3560815 2023

  28. [29]

    Davenport and Nitin Mittal.All-in On AI: How Smart Companies Win Big with Artificial Intelligence

    Thomas H. Davenport and Nitin Mittal.All-in On AI: How Smart Companies Win Big with Artificial Intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press, La Vergne, 2023

    2023

  29. [30]

    DiGeo: Discriminative Geometry-Aware Learning for Generalized Few-Shot Object Detection, March 2023

    Jiawei Ma, Yulei Niu, Jincheng Xu, Shiyuan Huang, Guangxing Han, and Shih-Fu Chang. DiGeo: Discriminative Geometry-Aware Learning for Generalized Few-Shot Object Detection, March 2023. arXiv:2303.09674 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09674,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.09674

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.09674 2023

  30. [31]

    Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attacks

    Sewon Min, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. MetaICL: Learning to Learn In Context, May 2022. arXiv:2110.15943 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15943, doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2110.15943

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2022

  31. [32]

    LLMs for Targeted Sentiment in News Headlines: Exploring the Descriptive-Prescriptive Dilemma, 2024

    Jana Juroš, Laura Majer, and Jan Šnajder. LLMs for Targeted Sentiment in News Headlines: Exploring the Descriptive-Prescriptive Dilemma, 2024. Version Number: 3. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00418, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2403.00418

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.00418 2024

  32. [33]

    One Prompt To Rule Them All: LLMs for Opinion Summary Evaluation, 2024

    Tejpalsingh Siledar, Swaroop Nath, Sankara Sri Raghava Ravindra Muddu, Rupasai Rangaraju, Swaprava Nath, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Suman Banerjee, Amey Patil, Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh, Muthusamy Chelliah, and Nikesh Garera. One Prompt To Rule Them All: LLMs for Opinion Summary Evaluation, 2024. Version Number:

    2024

  33. [34]

    URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11683,doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2402.11683

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.11683

  34. [35]

    Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principle

    Naftali Tishby and Noga Zaslavsky. Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principle, March 2015. arXiv:1503.02406 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02406,doi:10.48550/arXiv.1503.02406

    work page Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1503.02406 2015

  35. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15022 , year=

    Qingyue Wang, Yanhe Fu, Yanan Cao, Shuai Wang, Zhiliang Tian, and Liang Ding. Recursively Summarizing Enables Long-Term Dialogue Memory in Large Language Models, August 2025. arXiv:2308.15022 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15022,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.15022

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.15022 2025

  36. [37]

    Structural Sentence Similarity Estimation for Short Texts, 2016

    Weicheng Ma and Torsten Suel. Structural Sentence Similarity Estimation for Short Texts, 2016. 14 Consistency Analysis of Sentiment Prediction using SSAS

    2016

  37. [38]

    Jurafsky, J.H

    D. Jurafsky, J.H. Martin, P. Norvig, and S. Russell.Speech and Language Processing. Pearson Education, 2014. URL:https://books.google.com/books?id=Cq2gBwAAQBAJ

    2014

  38. [39]

    Semantic Map and HBV in English, Chinese and Korean—A Case Study of hand,Shou and Son.Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(6):1216, November 2016

    Chengyu Nan. Semantic Map and HBV in English, Chinese and Korean—A Case Study of hand,shou and son.Jour- nal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(6):1216, November 2016. URL:http://www.academypublication. com/issues2/jltr/vol07/06/21.pdf,doi:10.17507/jltr.0706.21

    work page doi:10.17507/jltr.0706.21 2016

  39. [40]

    Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts

    Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank, October 2013. URL: https://aclanthology.org/D13-1170/

    2013

  40. [41]

    Peter D. Turney. Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews, 2001. URL: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1073083.1073153, doi:10.3115/ 1073083.1073153

    work page arXiv 2001

  41. [42]

    Recent Trends in Named Entity Recognition (NER), January 2021

    Arya Roy. Recent Trends in Named Entity Recognition (NER), 2021. Version Number: 1. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2101.11420,doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2101.11420

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.11420 2021

  42. [43]

    Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey.Multimedia Tools Appl., 78(11):15169– 15211, June 2019.doi:10.1007/s11042-018-6894-4

    Hamed Jelodar, Yongli Wang, Chi Yuan, Xia Feng, Xiahui Jiang, Yanchao Li, and Liang Zhao. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) and topic modeling: models, applications, a survey.Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(11):15169–15211, June 2019. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11042-018-6894-4 , doi: 10.1007/s11042-018-6894-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11042-018-6894-4 2019

  43. [44]

    Topic Discovery for Short Texts Using Word Embeddings, December 2016

    Guangxu Xun, Vishrawas Gopalakrishnan, Fenglong Ma, Yaliang Li, Jing Gao, and Aidong Zhang. Topic Discovery for Short Texts Using Word Embeddings, December 2016. URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/7837989/,doi:10.1109/ICDM.2016.0176

    work page doi:10.1109/icdm.2016.0176 2016

  44. [45]

    Effective Field Theory.Annu

    Robert Desimone and John Duncan. Neural Mechanisms of Selective Visual Attention.Annual Review of Neu- roscience, 18(1):193–222, March 1995. URL: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev. ne.18.030195.001205,doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev 1995

  45. [46]

    Osherson, editors.An Invitation to Cognitive Sci- ence: Language

    Lila Gleitman, Mark Liberman, and Daniel N. Osherson, editors.An Invitation to Cognitive Sci- ence: Language. The MIT Press, 1995. URL: https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4671/ An-Invitation-to-Cognitive-ScienceLanguage,doi:10.7551/mitpress/3964.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/3964.001.0001 1995

  46. [47]

    Computational Sentence-level Metrics Predicting Human Sentence Comprehension,

    Kun Sun and Rong Wang. Computational Sentence-level Metrics Predicting Human Sentence Comprehension,

  47. [48]

    Deep reinforcement learning and mean-variance strategies for responsible portfolio optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16667, 2024

    Version Number: 2. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.15822, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2403. 15822

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403

  48. [49]

    Holbrook, Kurt P

    Jennifer K. Holbrook, Kurt P. Eiselt, and Kavi Mahesh. A Unified Process Model of Syntactic and Semantic Error Recovery in Sentence Understanding, 1994. Version Number: 1. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/ 9408021,doi:10.48550/ARXIV.CMP-LG/9408021

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.cmp-lg/9408021 1994

  49. [50]

    A Scalable Distributed Syntactic, Semantic, and Lexical Language Model.Computational Linguistics, 38(3):631–671, September 2012

    Ming Tan, Wenli Zhou, Lei Zheng, and Shaojun Wang. A Scalable Distributed Syntactic, Semantic, and Lexical Language Model.Computational Linguistics, 38(3):631–671, September 2012. URL: https://direct.mit. edu/coli/article/38/3/631-671/2168,doi:10.1162/COLI_a_00107

    work page doi:10.1162/coli_a_00107 2012

  50. [51]

    Ryoo, and Tsung-Yu Lin

    Kanchana Ranasinghe, Satya Narayan Shukla, Omid Poursaeed, Michael S. Ryoo, and Tsung-Yu Lin. Learning to Localize Objects Improves Spatial Reasoning in Visual-LLMs, 2024. Version Number: 1. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2404.07449,doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2404.07449

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.07449 2024

  51. [52]

    Generative Question Answering: Learning to Answer the Whole Question, 2019

    Mike Lewis and Angela Fan. Generative Question Answering: Learning to Answer the Whole Question, 2019. URL:https://openreview.net/forum?id=Bkx0RjA9tX

    2019

  52. [53]

    Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space, September 2013. arXiv:1301.3781 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 2013

  53. [54]

    Longllada: Unlocking long context capabilities in diffusion llms

    SangHun Im, Gibaeg Kim, Heung-Seon Oh, Seongung Jo, and Donghwan Kim. Hierarchical Text Classification As Sub-Hierarchy Sequence Generation.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 37(11):12933– 12941, June 2023. arXiv:2111.11104 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11104, doi:10.1609/aaai. v37i11.26520

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai 2023

  54. [55]

    Hierarchical Summarization: Scaling Up Multi-Document Summarization, 2014

    Janara Christensen, Stephen Soderland, Gagan Bansal, and Mausam. Hierarchical Summarization: Scaling Up Multi-Document Summarization, 2014. URL: http://aclweb.org/anthology/P14-1085, doi:10.3115/ v1/P14-1085

    2014

  55. [56]

    Compressing context to enhance inference efficiency of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06201, 2023

    Yucheng Li, Bo Dong, Chenghua Lin, and Frank Guerin. Compressing Context to Enhance Inference Efficiency of Large Language Models, October 2023. arXiv:2310.06201 [cs]. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06201, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.06201. 15 Consistency Analysis of Sentiment Prediction using SSAS

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06201 2023

  56. [57]

    Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models

    Gemini Team et al. Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models, May 2025. arXiv:2312.11805 [cs]. URL:http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805,doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.11805

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.11805 2025

  57. [58]

    An ai-driven approach to assess sentiments and interpret context in a critical mineral supply chain.International Journal of Production Research, pages 1–29, July 2025

    Nitin Joglekar, Wei Nie, Mariel Alem Fonseca, Naoum Tsolakis, and Mukesh Kumar. An ai-driven approach to assess sentiments and interpret context in a critical mineral supply chain.International Journal of Production Research, pages 1–29, July 2025. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207543. 2025.2532142,doi:10.1080/00207543.2025.2532142. ...

    work page doi:10.1080/00207543 2025