In-context learning enhanced by multi-perspective sequential retrieval and predictive feedback for few-shot aspect-based sentiment analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) aims to extract fine-grained opinions from the text by discerning sentiments toward specific aspects. Although large language models (LLMs) perform well in-context learning (ICL), current ICL methodologies typically retrieve semantically similar but structurally redundant examples, failing to capture syntactic and aspect-level cues critical for ABSA. To overcome these limitations, we report Multi-perspective Sequential retrieval with Predictive Feedback (MSPF), a few-shot learning framework that enhances ICL through MSPF, which integrates three complementary perspectives: overall semantic, syntactic relevance, and aspect sentiment alignment. Evaluated on four benchmark datasets (Laptop14, Restaurant14, Books, and Clothing), MSPF achieved F1 scores of 67.03 % (Laptop14), 73.51 % (Restaurant14), 76.07 % (Books), and 81.96 % (Clothing), outperforming standard ICL by +7.06 %, +5.60 %, +25.61 %, and +18.38 %, respectively. These results validated the efficacy of MSPF in improving LLM reasoning for fine-grained sentiment tasks with limited annotations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".