Author
Listed:
- Konstantinos I. Roumeliotis
(Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of the Peloponnese, 221 31 Tripoli, Greece
Department of Management Science and Technology, University of the Peloponnese, Sehi Location (Former 4th Shooting Range), 221 31 Tripoli, Greece)
- Dionisis Margaris
(Department of Digital Systems, University of the Peloponnese, Valioti’s Building, Kladas, 231 00 Sparta, Greece)
- Dimitris Spiliotopoulos
(Department of Management Science and Technology, University of the Peloponnese, Sehi Location (Former 4th Shooting Range), 221 31 Tripoli, Greece)
- Costas Vassilakis
(Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, University of the Peloponnese, 221 31 Tripoli, Greece)
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation comparing meta-model aggregation strategies with traditional ensemble methods and standalone models for sentiment analysis in recommender systems beyond standalone large language model (LLM) performance. We investigate whether aggregating multiple LLMs through a reasoning-based meta-model provides measurable performance advantages over individual models and standard statistical aggregation approaches in zero-shot sentiment classification. Using a balanced dataset of 5000 verified Amazon purchase reviews (1000 reviews per rating category from 1 to 5 stars, sampled via two-stage stratified sampling across five product categories), we evaluate 12 different leading pre-trained LLMs from four major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and DeepSeek) in both standalone and meta-model configurations. Our experimental design systematically compares individual model performance against GPT-based meta-model aggregation and traditional ensemble baselines (majority voting, mean aggregation). Results show statistically significant improvements (McNemar’s test, p < 0.001): the GPT-5 meta-model achieves 71.40% accuracy (10.15 percentage point improvement over the 61.25% individual model average), while the GPT-5 mini meta-model reaches 70.32% (9.07 percentage point improvement). These observed improvements surpass traditional ensemble methods (majority voting: 62.64%; mean aggregation: 62.96%), suggesting potential value in meta-model aggregation for sentiment analysis tasks. Our analysis reveals empirical patterns including neutral sentiment classification challenges (3-star ratings show 64.83% failure rates across models), model influence hierarchies, and cost-accuracy trade-offs ($130.45 aggregation cost vs. $0.24–$43.97 for individual models per 5000 predictions). This work provides evidence-based insights into the comparative effectiveness of LLM aggregation strategies in recommender systems, demonstrating that meta-model aggregation with natural language reasoning capabilities achieves measurable performance gains beyond statistical aggregation alone.
Suggested Citation
Konstantinos I. Roumeliotis & Dionisis Margaris & Dimitris Spiliotopoulos & Costas Vassilakis, 2026.
"A Large-Scale Empirical Study of LLM Orchestration and Ensemble Strategies for Sentiment Analysis in Recommender Systems,"
Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-43, February.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jftint:v:18:y:2026:i:2:p:112-:d:1868527
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:18:y:2026:i:2:p:112-:d:1868527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.