Task Complexity Matters: An Empirical Study of Reasoning in LLMs for Sentiment Analysis
Fuente:
arXiv
Enregistré dans:
| Auteurs principaux: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Publié: |
2026
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
| _version_ | 1866915823442984960 |
|---|---|
| author | Huang, Donghao Wang, Zhaoxia |
| author_facet | Huang, Donghao Wang, Zhaoxia |
| contents | 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2602_24060 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Task Complexity Matters: An Empirical Study of Reasoning in LLMs for Sentiment Analysis Huang, Donghao Wang, Zhaoxia Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence 68T50 I.2.7 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. |
| title | Task Complexity Matters: An Empirical Study of Reasoning in LLMs for Sentiment Analysis |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence 68T50 I.2.7 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.24060 |