Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00312 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866912405607415808 |
|---|---|
| author | Sands, Brendan Wang, Yining Xu, Chenhao Zhou, Yuxuan Wei, Lai Chandra, Rohitash |
| author_facet | Sands, Brendan Wang, Yining Xu, Chenhao Zhou, Yuxuan Wei, Lai Chandra, Rohitash |
| contents | Large language models (LLMs) have been prominent in various tasks, including text generation and summarisation. The applicability of LLMs to the generation of product reviews is gaining momentum, paving the way for the generation of movie reviews. In this study, we propose a framework that generates movie reviews using three LLMs (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini-2.0), and evaluate their performance by comparing the generated outputs with IMDb user reviews. We use movie subtitles and screenplays as input to the LLMs and investigate how they affect the quality of reviews generated. We review the LLM-based movie reviews in terms of vocabulary, sentiment polarity, similarity, and thematic consistency in comparison to IMDB user reviews. The results demonstrate that LLMs are capable of generating syntactically fluent and structurally complete movie reviews. Nevertheless, there is still a noticeable gap in emotional richness and stylistic coherence between LLM-generated and IMDb reviews, suggesting that further refinement is needed to improve the overall quality of movie review generation. We provided a survey-based analysis where participants were told to distinguish between LLM and IMDb user reviews. The results show that LLM-generated reviews are difficult to distinguish from IMDB user reviews. We found that DeepSeek-V3 produced the most balanced reviews, closely matching IMDb reviews. GPT-4o overemphasised positive emotions, while Gemini-2.0 captured negative emotions better but showed excessive emotional intensity. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2506_00312 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | An evaluation of LLMs for generating movie reviews: GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0 and DeepSeek-V3 Sands, Brendan Wang, Yining Xu, Chenhao Zhou, Yuxuan Wei, Lai Chandra, Rohitash Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Large language models (LLMs) have been prominent in various tasks, including text generation and summarisation. The applicability of LLMs to the generation of product reviews is gaining momentum, paving the way for the generation of movie reviews. In this study, we propose a framework that generates movie reviews using three LLMs (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini-2.0), and evaluate their performance by comparing the generated outputs with IMDb user reviews. We use movie subtitles and screenplays as input to the LLMs and investigate how they affect the quality of reviews generated. We review the LLM-based movie reviews in terms of vocabulary, sentiment polarity, similarity, and thematic consistency in comparison to IMDB user reviews. The results demonstrate that LLMs are capable of generating syntactically fluent and structurally complete movie reviews. Nevertheless, there is still a noticeable gap in emotional richness and stylistic coherence between LLM-generated and IMDb reviews, suggesting that further refinement is needed to improve the overall quality of movie review generation. We provided a survey-based analysis where participants were told to distinguish between LLM and IMDb user reviews. The results show that LLM-generated reviews are difficult to distinguish from IMDB user reviews. We found that DeepSeek-V3 produced the most balanced reviews, closely matching IMDb reviews. GPT-4o overemphasised positive emotions, while Gemini-2.0 captured negative emotions better but showed excessive emotional intensity. |
| title | An evaluation of LLMs for generating movie reviews: GPT-4o, Gemini-2.0 and DeepSeek-V3 |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00312 |