The Overlooked Repetitive Lengthening Form in Sentiment Analysis

Long-form question answering (LFQA) demands nuanced evaluation of multi-sentence explanatory responses, yet existing metrics often fail to reflect human judgment. We present LFQA-HP-1M, a large-scale dataset comprising 1.3M human pairwise preference annotations for LFQA. We propose nine rubrics for answer quality evaluation, and show that simple linear models based on these features perform comparably to state-of-the-art LLM evaluators. We further examine transitivity consistency, positional bias, and verbosity biases in LLM evaluators and demonstrate their vulnerability to adversarial perturbations. Overall, this work provides one of the largest public LFQA preference datasets and a rubric-driven framework for transparent and reliable evaluation.

Prior work suggests that sentiment can often be captured by approximately linear directions in LLM activation spaces, but a single direction may not fully capture sentiment representations. In natural communication, sentiment is shaped not only by polarity but also by usage factors, such as tone and audience adaptation. We test whether these factors systematically modulate sentiment representations beyond a shared sentiment direction. We construct a controlled paired dataset that holds event content fixed while varying sentiment polarity and usage factors, and analyze Llama, Mistral, and Gemma. We identify a shared sentiment direction, remove it, and test the residual structure through erasure and generation-time tone steering. Across models, the shared direction is robust (median cosine 0.953-0.975), yet removing it leaves 0.833-0.909 of the original positive-negative representation-difference norm. The residuals contain compact, reproducible usage-conditioned structure. Targeted erasure weakens held-out usage metrics more than random and label-shuffled controls. On Llama, outputs steered along residualized tone components are preferred in 92.8% of blind target-tone comparisons while preserving the requested sentiment polarity in 98.7% of evaluated outputs.

Large language models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have fueled a compelling narrative that reasoning universally improves performance across language tasks. We test this claim through a comprehensive evaluation of 504 configurations across seven model families--including adaptive, conditional, and reinforcement learning-based reasoning architectures--on sentiment analysis datasets of varying granularity (binary, five-class, and 27-class emotion). Our findings reveal that reasoning effectiveness is strongly task-dependent, challenging prevailing assumptions: (1) Reasoning shows task-complexity dependence--binary classification degrades up to -19.9 F1 percentage points (pp), while 27-class emotion recognition gains up to +16.0pp; (2) Distilled reasoning variants underperform base models by 3-18 pp on simpler tasks, though few-shot prompting enables partial recovery; (3) Few-shot learning improves over zero-shot in most cases regardless of model type, with gains varying by architecture and task complexity; (4) Pareto frontier analysis shows base models dominate efficiency-performance trade-offs, with reasoning justified only for complex emotion recognition despite 2.1x-54x computational overhead. We complement these quantitative findings with qualitative error analysis revealing that reasoning degrades simpler tasks through systematic over-deliberation, offering mechanistic insight beyond the high-level overthinking hypothesis.