Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

LLM-SEM: A Sentiment-Based Student Engagement Metric Using LLMS for E-Learning Platforms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single engagement scale for e-learning videos is built from views, likes, and comment sentiment.

desk verdict The paper defines an engagement score by summing normalized views, likes, and comment sentiment, but never tests whether that score actually measures engagement—the only experiment validates the sentiment classifier, not the metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13765 v2 pith:QRIKYS7P submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CL cs.AI

Ali Hamdi , Ahmed Abdelmoneim Mazrou , Mohamed Shaltout This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords studentengagemente-learningsentimentanalysislargelanguagemodelsRoBERTafine-tuningYouTubemetadatapolarityscoringLLM-SEM
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a student engagement metric, LLM-SEM, that scores e-learning videos by adding normalized view counts, normalized like counts, and the average sentiment polarity of user comments. The aim is to replace surveys and small-scale feedback with a scalable, data-driven measure that captures both how many people interact with a lesson and how they feel about it. To get sentiment right, the authors compare several large language models and fine-tune RoBERTa on a human-annotated Arabic sentiment dataset, reporting that fine-tuned RoBERTa clearly outperforms Llama and Gemma. If the metric works, educators and content creators can compare courses and lessons on a single scale without running questionnaires.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the LLM-SEM formula $E_v = NV_v + NL_v + P_v$, where $NV_v$ and $NL_v$ are min-max normalized views and likes and $P_v$ is the mean sentiment polarity of a video's comments. The polarity stage is the distinctive part: comments are classified by a large language model with a confidence score, positive comments contribute $+score$, negative comments contribute $-score$, neutral comments contribute $0$, and the results are averaged so each video's polarity stays in $[-1,1]$. Playlist polarity is then the mean of the video polarities in a playlist, so courses can be scored by averaging their lessons. The membership function that maps these scores to engagement quality is what translates raw platform data into an assessment.

What would settle it

Run LLM-SEM on a set of courses and compare its rankings with an independent engagement signal such as quiz completion rates, video retention, or student survey responses; if the metric's scores do not track that signal, the claim that it measures engagement is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a simple additive formula, normalized views plus normalized likes plus a sentiment polarity score, measures student engagement at both lesson and course level. For each video, views and likes are min-max normalized to 0-1, each comment is classified by a large language model as positive, negative, or neutral with a confidence weight, and the polarity $P_v$ is the mean of those weighted scores over the video's comments. The final metric is $E_v = NV_v + NL_v + P_v$, which ranges from $-1$ to $3$, with thresholds at $1.5$ and $0.5$ separating good, moderate, and poor engagement. The paper reports that fine-tuned RoBERTa achieves the best sentiment classification of the models tested (accuracy $0.86$, F1 $0.84$) and builds LLM-SEM on that model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sentiment scores produced by the fine-tuned model accurately reflect how students feel about a lesson, even though the model was trained on general Arabic sentiment data rather than educational comments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every lesson can be compared with every other lesson on a single $-1$ to $3$ scale, and courses can be ranked by averaging the engagement scores of their lessons.
  • The metric runs entirely on public platform data, so it scales to channels and platforms with far more content than any survey-based method could cover.
  • Fine-tuning a sentiment model on labeled data matters: the fine-tuned RoBERTa model (accuracy $0.86$, F1 $0.84$) clearly outperforms the out-of-the-box Llama and Gemma models.
  • The stated thresholds give educators a simple triage rule: scores above $1.5$ indicate strong engagement, below $0.5$ poor engagement, and in between moderate engagement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A crucial next step, not taken in the paper, is validating the metric against independent engagement signals such as quiz performance, video retention, or self-reported engagement; the metric's claim to measure engagement rests on that correlation.
  • The sentiment stage is fine-tuned on general Arabic sentiment data, not on educational comments, so the polarity scores may shift when applied to instructional YouTube comments; a small labeled set of educational comments would test this directly.
  • The equal weighting of views, likes, and sentiment is an arbitrary design choice that the authors do not justify; different weights could reorder courses, so a sensitivity analysis would show how much rankings depend on that choice.
  • The metric could be extended, along lines the paper leaves implicit, by adding watch-time, comment volume, or reply counts as additional normalized components.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LLM-SEM, a metric for measuring student engagement in e-learning videos by combining normalized metadata (views and likes) with sentiment polarity scores derived from LLM-based sentiment analysis of user comments. The methodology covers data collection from YouTube playlists, sentiment classification with fine-tuned RoBERTa and two other LLMs, min-max normalization of metadata, and aggregation into a per-video score E_v. The only empirical evaluation reported is sentiment classification accuracy (Table 1), with no validation of the engagement metric itself against any ground-truth engagement criterion.

Significance. If the proposed metric were validated, it would offer a scalable complement to surveys for monitoring engagement on educational video platforms. The paper's sentiment classification comparison is a useful component-level contribution, and the fine-tuning setup is reproducible from the public Arabic Sentiment Corpora. However, the central claim that LLM-SEM provides an accurate measure of engagement is entirely unsupported by the reported experiments, and the metric is constructed as an equal-weight sum of its inputs with no external validation, which limits the significance of the contribution in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.6, Eq. (1)] The central claim that E_v = NV_v + NL_v + P_v is an "accurate measure of student engagement" is not tested anywhere in the paper. Section 4 reports only sentiment classification results (Table 1) on the Arabic Sentiment Corpora; there is no dataset with engagement labels, no comparison against student self-reports, expert ratings, completion rates, retention, or any other external engagement criterion, and no baseline engagement metric for comparison. Consequently, the paper provides no evidence that E_v tracks engagement rather than an arbitrary weighted sum of views, likes, and comment polarity.
  2. [Section 3.5 and Section 3.6] The thresholds for engagement quality (Ev > 1.5 good, 0.5–1.5 moderate, <0.5 poor) are asserted without calibration or any principled derivation, and the min-max normalization depends on dataset-specific extrema (Vmin, Vmax, Lmin, Lmax) that are not reported. The equal weighting of the three components (NV_v, NL_v, P_v) is a free parameter whose influence on the resulting engagement classification is not analyzed, so the metric's behavior under different weightings or normalization choices is unknown.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Section 3.4] The sentiment model used for the polarity component is fine-tuned on the Arabic Sentiment Corpora, which is not a collection of educational comments, so the model's transfer to the target domain (YouTube lesson comments) is unvalidated. Additionally, Section 3.3 states that the confidence score "ranges from -1 to 1", which conflates confidence (normally in [0,1]) with polarity; the weighting w_c = ±score_c (with neutral mapped to 0) is a signed combination of polarity and confidence whose interpretation is not justified.
  4. [Section 4] The paper claims that "extensive experiments" were conducted to evaluate the LLM-SEM framework, but the only experiment reported is sentiment classification on the fine-tuning/benchmark dataset. There is no evaluation of the full pipeline on actual course or lesson data, so the contribution of each component to E_v and the metric's practical utility remain undemonstrated. The abstract and conclusion overstate the empirical support for the proposed metric.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.2] The model names are inconsistent: the abstract says "TXLM-RoBERTa", Section 3.2 says "Twitter-XLM-RoBERTa-Base for Sentiment Analysis", and Table 1 says "RoBERTa (fine-tuned)"; please use consistent nomenclature.
  2. [Section 3.3] The description of the confidence score "ranges from -1 to 1" is ambiguous; model confidence is typically in [0,1], and the signed weighting should be described as a separate polarity-weighted confidence score rather than as a raw confidence range.
  3. [Section 3.1] The data collection description lacks essential reproducibility details: the number of channels, the number of playlists/videos/comments, the time period of collection, and the language distribution of the comments are not reported.
  4. [Section 3.4] The notation is confusing because N_v is used both for the number of comments in the polarity calculation and as part of the symbol NV_v for normalized views; consider using distinct symbols (e.g., |C_v| for comment count).
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript contains typographical errors and inconsistent numbering (e.g., "T able 1" in the results section, and Section 4 lists "LLama 3.2B" while Section 3.2 says "LLama 3B"); a thorough proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central claim that E_v is an 'accurate measure of student engagement' reduces to its own definition: E_v is defined as the sum of its inputs and no independent engagement criterion is ever used.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.6 (engagement formula) and Abstract]
    "The overall engagement score is calculated by summing the normalized views (N Vv), normalized likes (N Lv), and the sentiment polarity score (Pv) as: Ev = N Vv + N Lv + Pv ... demonstrating the effectiveness of LLM-SEM in providing a scalable and accurate measure of student engagement."

    The paper defines E_v as the sum of normalized views, normalized likes, and sentiment polarity, and then calls this quantity an 'accurate measure of student engagement.' No external engagement criterion appears anywhere in Section 4: there are no ground-truth engagement labels, no student self-reports, no expert ratings, no completion or retention data. Therefore the claim that E_v is an accurate measure cannot fail on any dataset; every dataset produces some E_v and the result is labeled engagement by construction. The effectiveness claim is thus equivalent to the operational definition rather than a tested consequence.

full rationale

The derivation chain for computing E_v is explicit and self-contained: metadata are min-max normalized, comments are scored by sentiment models, and the pieces are summed. There is no circularity in these arithmetic steps themselves. The circularity enters with the paper's central validity claim, because 'accurate measure of student engagement' is never checked against any independent measure of engagement; the metric is simply asserted to be engagement. The sentiment classification benchmark in Table 1 is an independent evaluation of the sentiment component on a human-annotated corpus, so that sub-result is not circular, but it does not validate E_v as an engagement metric. The arbitrary thresholds and the domain mismatch of the sentiment corpus are correctness risks rather than circularity concerns. Because the headline claim reduces to the definition of E_v, the score is high.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

All components of the engagement metric are either assumed to be valid engagement signals or chosen ad hoc; none are derived or empirically grounded. The metric's accuracy therefore rests entirely on untested domain assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Equal weights for views, likes, and polarity = w_v = 1, w_l = 1, w_p = 1
    In Ev = NV_v + NL_v + Pv, each component is given equal weight without justification or fitting.
  • Engagement quality thresholds = 1.5 and 0.5
    Thresholds defining good/moderate/poor engagement are chosen by hand with no empirical basis.
  • Sentiment classification confidence as weight = score_c in [-1,1]
    The impact of each comment is weighted by model confidence, an ad hoc choice not derived from data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Comment sentiment is a valid proxy for student engagement.
    Section 3.3 states sentiment provides insight into how users feel, but this link is not empirically established.
  • domain assumption Views and likes are valid engagement indicators.
    Section 3.1 treats views and likes as key quantitative engagement features without validation.
  • domain assumption Min-max normalization across all videos yields comparable engagement scores.
    Section 3.5 normalizes by dataset-wide extrema, assuming comparability across channels and time periods.
  • domain assumption The human-annotated sentiment dataset is reliable for fine-tuning in an educational context.
    Section 3.2 states the dataset comes from the authors' Arabic Sentiment Corpora GitHub repository; no external provenance or inter-annotator agreement is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper LLM confidence scores are meaningful as polarity weights.
    Section 3.4 weights each comment by the model's confidence score, but no evidence shows confidence correlates with correctness or engagement.
invented entities (1)
  • LLM-SEM engagement score Ev
    purpose: Quantify student engagement per video as sum of normalized views, likes, and sentiment polarity.
    The metric is introduced as a new measure but no external validation or ground truth is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LLM-SEM: A Sentiment-Based Student Engagement Metric Using LLMS for E-Learning Platforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRIKYS7P

@misc{pith2026241213765,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LLM-SEM: A Sentiment-Based Student Engagement Metric Using LLMS for E-Learning Platforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRIKYS7P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13765}
}
read the original abstract

Current methods for analyzing student engagement in e-learning platforms, including automated systems, often struggle with challenges such as handling fuzzy sentiment in text comments and relying on limited metadata. Traditional approaches, such as surveys and questionnaires, also face issues like small sample sizes and scalability. In this paper, we introduce LLM-SEM (Language Model-Based Student Engagement Metric), a novel approach that leverages video metadata and sentiment analysis of student comments to measure engagement. By utilizing recent Large Language Models (LLMs), we generate high-quality sentiment predictions to mitigate text fuzziness and normalize key features such as views and likes. Our holistic method combines comprehensive metadata with sentiment polarity scores to gauge engagement at both the course and lesson levels. Extensive experiments were conducted to evaluate various LLM models, demonstrating the effectiveness of LLM-SEM in providing a scalable and accurate measure of student engagement. We fine-tuned TXLM-RoBERTa using human-annotated sentiment datasets to enhance prediction accuracy and utilized LLama 3B, and Gemma 9B from Ollama.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13765 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A workflow illustrating the process of calculating the Student Engagement Metric (SEM) using course lessons, metadata, comments, and sentiment analysis. Starting from (a) the course lessons, (b) metadata is extracted and normalized using Min-Max normalization (g) to contribute to the final SEM (h). Simultaneously, (c) comments are analyzed by a Large Language Model (LLM) (d) for sentiment analysis (e), leading to (f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schema of the data collection structure showing the relationships between Playlists, Videos, and Comments. Each playlist contains multiple videos, identified by a foreign key Playlist_ID. Videos are linked to comments through the Video_ID foreign key, and each video has associated metadata such as views, likes, and duration. This relational structure allows efficient organization and processing of data for analysis.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Arabic Large Language Models for Medical Text Generation

    cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning Mistral-7B on a new Arabic medical Q&A dataset yields BERTScore F1 of 68.50 percent, higher than LLaMA-2, GPT-2 Medium, AraGPT2, and BLOOM in this study.

  2. A Multi-Layered Large Language Model Framework for Disease Prediction

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    LLAMA3-based NER preprocessing plus LoRA fine-tuning of CAMeL-BERT gives 83% disease type and 69% severity accuracy on Arabic telehealth posts, though without significance testing.

  3. Retrieval Augmented Generation Based LLM Evaluation For Protocol State Machine Inference With Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    cs.NI 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A RAG-plus-chain-of-thought agent improves BLEU, ROUGE, and WER scores for RTSP packet seed generation over Gemma-2-9B and Llama-3-8B baselines, though the evaluation does not test actual fuzzing effectiveness.

  4. Scaling Arabic Medical Chatbots Using Synthetic Data: Enhancing Generative AI with Synthetic Patient Records

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    Synthetic patient-doctor dialogues generated by ChatGPT-4o and Gemini and mixed with 20,000 real Arabic records improved fine-tuned LLM BERTScore F1 scores, with ChatGPT-4o data giving larger gains than Gemini data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00104 (2020)

    Antoun, W., Baly, F., Hajj, H.: Arabert: Transformer-based model for arabic language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00104 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP)18(3), 1–52 (2019)

    Badaro, G., Baly, R., Hajj, H., El-Hajj, W., Shaban, K.B., Habash, N., Al-Sallab, A., Hamdi, A.: A survey of opinion mining in arabic: A comprehensive system perspective covering challenges and advances in tools, resources, models, applications, and visualizations. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP)18(3), 1...

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SEMEVAL-2017), pp

    Baly, R., Badaro, G., Hamdi, A., Moukalled, R., Aoun, R., El-Khoury, G., Al Sallab, A., Hajj, H., Habash, N., Shaban, K., et al.: Omam at semeval-2017 task 4: Evaluation of english state-of-the-art sentiment analysis models for arabic and a new topic-based model. In: Proceedings of the 11th international workshop on semantic evaluation (SEMEVAL-2017), pp....

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp

    Barbieri, F., Camacho-Collados, J., Neves, L., Scarton, L., Wang, H.: Tweeteval: Unified benchmark and comparative evaluation for tweet classification. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1644–1654 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Procedia Computer Science161, 707–714 (2019) LLM-SEM: Measuring Student Engagement in E-Learning Platforms 11

    Drus, Z., Khalid, H.: Sentiment analysis in social media and its application: Systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science161, 707–714 (2019) LLM-SEM: Measuring Student Engagement in E-Learning Platforms 11

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education (just-accepted), 1–20 (2024)

    Friedman, A., Beasley, Z.: Using textual analysis to examine student engagement in online undergraduate science education. Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education (just-accepted), 1–20 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    PloS one 14(5), e0215,964 (2019)

    Ginda, M., Richey, M.C., Cousino, M., Börner, K.: Visualizing learner engagement, performance, and trajectories to evaluate and optimize online course design. PloS one 14(5), e0215,964 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Big Data and Cognitive Computing6(3), 88 (2022)

    Hamad, O., Hamdi, A., Hamdi, S., Shaban, K.: Steducov: an explored and benchmarked dataset on stance detection in tweets towards online education during covid-19 pandemic. Big Data and Cognitive Computing6(3), 88 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    In: International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, pp

    Hamad, O., Hamdi, A., Shaban, K.: Attention-based model for accurate stance detection. In: International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, pp. 212–224. Springer (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    arabic chatbots: A survey and future directions

    Hamad, O., Hamdi, A., Shaban, K.: Empathy and persona of english vs. arabic chatbots: A survey and future directions. In: International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, pp. 525–537. Springer (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pp

    Hamad, O., Shaban, K., Hamdi, A.: Asem: Enhancing empathy in chatbot through attention-based sentiment and emotion modeling. In: Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pp. 1588–...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Hamdi, A., Shaban, K., Zainal, A.: A review on challenging issues in arabic sentiment analysis (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP) 17(4), 1–28 (2018)

    Hamdi, A., Shaban, K., Zainal, A.: Clasenti: a class-specific sentiment analysis framework. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing (TALLIP) 17(4), 1–28 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education18(1), 25 (2021)

    Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., Bélisle, M.: An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education18(1), 25 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Active Learning in Higher Education 12(1), 57–68 (2011)

    Ituma, A.: An evaluation of students’ perceptions and engagement with e-learning components in a campus based university. Active Learning in Higher Education 12(1), 57–68 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of naacL-HLT, vol

    Kenton, J.D.M.W.C., Toutanova, L.K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of naacL-HLT, vol. 1, p. 2. Minneapolis, Minnesota (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    Liu, Y.: Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Educational action research 26(5), 755–769 (2018)

    Mandouit, L.: Using student feedback to improve teaching. Educational action research 26(5), 755–769 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Frontiers in Communication 5, 572,181 (2021)

    Maynard, A.D.: How to succeed as an academic on youtube. Frontiers in Communication 5, 572,181 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Computers and Education Open 3, 100,088 (2022)

    Ogunyemi, A.A., Quaicoe, J.S., Bauters, M.: Indicators for enhancing learners’ engagement in massive open online courses: A systematic review. Computers and Education Open 3, 100,088 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Journal of Internet Services and Applications9, 1–28 (2018)

    Pereira, C.K., Campos, F., Ströele, V., David, J.M.N., Braga, R.: Broad-rsi–educational recommender system using social networks interactions and linked data. Journal of Internet Services and Applications9, 1–28 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    CRC Press (2024)

    Rothwell, W.J., Zaballero, A., Sadique, F., Bakhshandeh, B.: Revolutionizing the Online Learning Journey: 1,500 Ways to Increase Engagement. CRC Press (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Developments in the Built Environment p

    Saka, A., Taiwo, R., Saka, N., Salami, B.A., Ajayi, S., Akande, K., Kazemi, H.: Gpt models in construction industry: Opportunities, limitations, and a use case validation. Developments in the Built Environment p. 100300 (2023) 12 Ali Hamdi 1, Ahmed Abdelmoneim Mazrou1, and Moh...

    2023

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024)

    Team, G., Riviere, M., Pathak, S., Sessa, P.G., Hardin, C., Bhupatiraju, S., Hussenot, L., Mesnard, T., Shahriari, B., Ramé, A., et al.: Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

    Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al.: Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on AI in finance, pp

    Zhang, B., Yang, H., Zhou, T., Ali Babar, M., Liu, X.Y.: Enhancing financial sentiment analysis via retrieval augmented large language models. In: Proceedings of the fourth ACM international conference on AI in finance, pp. 349–356 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.