4.2. Baselines
To thoroughly evaluate the performance of our proposed hybrid model, we compare it with several mainstream baseline models across different tasks. These baselines include models that rely solely on either Large Language Models (LLMs) or Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), as well as hybrid models that integrate various architectures. The following tables summarize the key baselines used in our experiments.
4.2.1. LLM-Only Models
We compare our model against widely used LLM-based models, which are pre-trained on large corpora and fine-tuned for task-specific purposes. These models are highly effective in capturing global semantic information but may lack the ability to extract fine-grained local features. The LLM baselines used in our experiments are shown in
Table 5.
These LLMs are capable of producing contextual embeddings, which are crucial for understanding long-range dependencies in text. However, their limited capacity to capture local features makes them less effective in tasks that require detailed phrase-level analysis, such as named entity recognition (NER) and phrase-based sentiment analysis.
4.2.2. CNN-Only Models
We compare our hybrid model to CNN-only architectures. CNN-based models are typically strong in extracting local features like n-grams and patterns but struggle with long-range dependencies.
Table 6 lists the CNN baselines used in our evaluation.
While CNN-only models can capture local dependencies, they lack the capacity to model the full sentence context, which often limits their performance on tasks requiring deeper semantic understanding.
4.2.3. Hybrid Models
We also compare the proposed hybrid model with existing hybrid approaches that combine different neural network architectures to capture both global and local information.
Table 7 presents the hybrid baselines used in our experiments.
These models combine the strengths of both LLMs and CNNs but often lack the level of fine-tuned integration between global and local features that our proposed model achieves. Most existing hybrid models focus on sequential integration, whereas our model applies a more cohesive interaction through attention mechanisms that dynamically balance global and local information.
4.2.4. Overall Comparison of Baselines
To provide a high-level overview of the differences between the baseline models and our proposed hybrid model,
Table 8 presents a summary of their key characteristics.
As shown in the
Table 8, our proposed model integrates all the critical elements: contextual embeddings from LLMs, local feature extraction through CNNs, and an attention mechanism for dynamic feature integration. This provides a more balanced and robust solution for Chinese text processing tasks compared to traditional LLM-only, CNN-only, or hybrid models that lack one or more of these key components.
4.3. Performance Evaluation
In this section, we provide a detailed analysis of the model’s performance on each task, comparing it against the baselines introduced in the previous section.
4.3.1. Evaluation Metrics
The following metrics were used to evaluate the performance of the models across all tasks:
Accuracy: The percentage of correctly predicted samples out of the total samples.
Precision: The proportion of true positive predictions out of all positive predictions made by the model.
Recall: The proportion of true positive predictions out of all actual positive samples.
F1 Score: The harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a single metric to balance both.
Computation Time: The time taken to train and test the model, important for evaluating the efficiency of large-scale models.
These metrics provide a balanced assessment of both the predictive accuracy and the efficiency of the model.
4.3.2. Results on Sentiment Analysis
For the sentiment analysis task, we used the ChnSentiCorp dataset, which contains Chinese movie reviews labeled as either positive or negative. The results for sentiment analysis, evaluated using the metrics described above, are shown in
Figure 2.
As shown in
Figure 2, the proposed hybrid model achieves the highest accuracy (93.2%) and F1 score (93.3%) compared to all other baselines, including both LLM-only and CNN-only models. The improvement in performance is largely due to the model’s ability to capture both global and local features, ensuring a more nuanced understanding of sentiment in Chinese text.
The results from the sentiment analysis task demonstrate the effectiveness of combining LLMs with CNNs. While LLM-only models like BERT and RoBERTa provide strong global context understanding, they struggle to capture local sentiment cues such as specific word combinations or idiomatic phrases in Chinese. On the other hand, CNN-only models, though good at extracting local features, lack the ability to understand the broader context of a sentence, which is crucial for sentiment analysis. The proposed hybrid model overcomes these challenges by integrating both LLMs and CNNs, allowing it to simultaneously capture the necessary context and local patterns.
The proposed model’s relatively efficient computation time (1400 seconds) is comparable to other hybrid models like BERT + CNN (1450 seconds), making it not only more accurate but also competitive in terms of computational cost. This efficiency is achieved through the balanced use of attention mechanisms, which dynamically focus on the most relevant features, reducing the need for excessive computation in irrelevant areas.
4.3.3. Results on NER
For the NER task, we used the MSRA-NER dataset, which contains labeled entities such as person names, locations, and organizations in Chinese text. The model’s performance on this task is critical because it requires a detailed understanding of both local entity cues and global sentence context. The results for the NER task are presented in
Figure 3.
As shown in
Figure 3, the proposed hybrid model outperforms all baselines, achieving an accuracy of 96.1% and an F1 score of 96.1%. This improvement can be attributed to the model’s ability to leverage both the global context provided by the LLM and the local patterns captured by the CNN, which are essential for correctly identifying named entities in Chinese sentences.
NER tasks, particularly in Chinese, require the identification of named entities that often consist of short phrases or single characters. CNN-based models perform well in capturing these local features but often miss the necessary context for disambiguating entities, especially when the same entity appears multiple times with different roles in a sentence. On the other hand, LLM-based models provide strong contextual understanding but lack the ability to extract specific entity cues effectively.
The proposed hybrid model solves these issues by combining the strengths of both approaches. The LLM captures the global context of the sentence, ensuring that entities are understood in the broader narrative, while the CNN accurately detects short, local patterns that signal named entities. The attention mechanism further refines this process by focusing on the most relevant parts of the input, allowing for more precise identification.
In terms of computation time, the proposed hybrid model (1700 seconds) is comparable to other hybrid models like BERT + CNN (1750 seconds), making it an efficient and effective solution for NER tasks.
4.3.4. Results on Text Classification
For the text classification task, we used the THUCNews dataset, which consists of news articles labeled by topic. This task is challenging because it involves both sentence-level understanding and the detection of specific topic-related keywords. The results for the text classification task are shown in
Figure 4.
The updated performance comparison includes several important metrics such as Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score, and AUC (Area Under the Curve). Additionally, we incorporated model-specific attributes like training speed (samples per second) and memory usage (MB), providing a more comprehensive evaluation of each model.
The proposed hybrid model achieves the highest accuracy (95.4%) and F1 score (95.4%) on the text classification task, while also maintaining competitive AUC scores (0.98). It also demonstrates a balanced performance in terms of training speed (105 samples per second) and memory usage (720 MB). This highlights the model’s ability to effectively combine both global and local text features to make more accurate topic predictions, with relatively efficient resource consumption.
Text classification is a task that benefits from both sentence-level understanding and the ability to detect key local features, such as topic-specific keywords. LLMs perform well in capturing the general context of news articles but may struggle to identify critical topic-related phrases, especially when these phrases are short or repeated across multiple articles. CNN-based models, while effective at identifying specific local patterns, lack the necessary global understanding to classify articles accurately when keywords are used in ambiguous or non-standard contexts.
The proposed hybrid model addresses these limitations by integrating LLM-generated contextual embeddings with CNN-extracted local patterns. The attention mechanism dynamically selects the most relevant features, allowing the model to make more accurate and robust classifications. In addition, the computation time of the hybrid model (1420 seconds) is comparable to the BERT + CNN model (1450 seconds), demonstrating that the performance gains are not achieved at the cost of efficiency.
4.3.5. Discussion of Performance Evaluation
Across all tasks, the proposed hybrid model consistently outperforms the baseline models, demonstrating its versatility and effectiveness in Chinese text processing. The combination of LLM and CNN allows the model to capture both global and local features, while the attention mechanism ensures that the most relevant features are given appropriate weight. This balanced approach results in superior performance across sentiment analysis, NER, and text classification tasks.
In terms of computational efficiency, the hybrid model remains competitive with other hybrid architectures, making it a practical solution for large-scale NLP tasks. These results highlight the potential of the proposed hybrid model for real-world applications that require both deep contextual understanding and precise local feature extraction.
4.4. Ablation Study
In order to better understand the contributions of different components in the proposed hybrid model, we conducted an ablation study. This study evaluates the impact of removing or modifying key components such as the CNN, attention mechanism, and LLM fine-tuning. The following subsections present the results of these experiments.
4.4.1. Impact of CNN Component
For the CNN impact analysis, we evaluated the performance of the full hybrid model compared to versions of the model with components such as CNN or LSTM removed. This analysis was conducted across multiple metrics including Accuracy, F1 Scores for both NER and Text Classification (TC), training speed (samples per second), and memory usage (MB).
The results in
Figure 5 show that the full hybrid model achieves the highest accuracy (93.2%) and F1 score (95.4% for TC, 96.1% for NER), outperforming models with CNN or LSTM components removed. Additionally, while removing CNN resulted in slightly faster training speeds (110 samples per second), the full hybrid model demonstrates a more balanced trade-off between performance and computational efficiency, using 720 MB of memory and maintaining competitive training speeds. This indicates that the CNN component is crucial for achieving superior overall performance, though removing it can reduce resource consumption and slightly increase training speed.
4.4.2. Impact of Attention Mechanism
Next, we evaluated the effect of removing the attention mechanism from the model. The attention mechanism is responsible for dynamically weighting the most relevant features extracted by both the LLM and CNN components. The results of this experiment are presented in
Table 9.
As indicated in
Table 9, removing the attention mechanism leads to a decrease in performance, although the drop is less pronounced than the removal of the CNN component. For instance, the F1 score on the NER task decreases from 96.1% to 95.0%, and the text classification F1 score drops from 95.4% to 93.9%. These results highlight the importance of attention in integrating global context and local features, improving both accuracy and interpretability.
4.4.3. Impact of LLM Fine-Tuning
Finally, we analyzed the effect of not fine-tuning the LLM component. Fine-tuning allows the pre-trained LLM to adapt to the specific characteristics of the dataset being used, particularly in handling idiomatic expressions and domain-specific vocabulary. The results of this ablation experiment are shown in
Table 10.
The results in
Table 10 show a significant drop in performance when the LLM is not fine-tuned. For instance, the accuracy on the sentiment analysis task decreases from 93.2% to 90.2%, and the F1 score for text classification drops from 95.4% to 92.5%. This underscores the importance of fine-tuning the LLM to adapt it to the specific characteristics of the Chinese text datasets used in this study.
4.5. Error Analysis
Although the proposed hybrid model demonstrates strong performance across multiple tasks, it is essential to analyze its errors to identify potential areas for improvement. In this section, we conduct a detailed error analysis, categorizing the common types of errors encountered in sentiment analysis, NER, and text classification tasks.
4.5.1. Common Errors in Sentiment Analysis
In the sentiment analysis task, the most common errors occur when the model fails to capture the subtle sentiment cues in complex sentences or ambiguous phrases. For instance, certain idiomatic expressions or negations in Chinese can invert the intended sentiment, leading to incorrect predictions.
Table 11 provides an overview of the types of errors observed in sentiment analysis.
As shown in
Table 11, the misinterpretation of idiomatic expressions represents the highest proportion of errors (20%), followed by issues with negation handling (15%). This suggests that while the model captures overall sentiment well, it struggles with language-specific nuances, especially those related to idiomatic or sarcastic usage.
4.5.2. Common Errors in NER
For the NER task, errors are most frequently associated with incorrect boundary detection for named entities or confusion between entity types (e.g., misclassifying a location as a person).
Table 12 presents the key error types encountered in NER.
Entity boundary misidentification accounts for 18% of errors, often occurring when the model incorrectly detects the start or end of a named entity, particularly for longer or compound entities. Confusion between entity types, such as mistaking a person for a location, is also a frequent error, representing 15% of the total errors.
4.5.3. Common Errors in Text Classification
In the text classification task, errors often arise from the model’s difficulty in distinguishing between closely related topics or when keywords are insufficient to infer the correct topic.
Table 13 summarizes the common error types found in text classification.
As shown in
Table 13, topic ambiguity leads to the highest error rate (17%), particularly when articles contain information spanning multiple related topics, such as technology and business. The model also struggles with articles that are too short or lack enough specific keywords to determine the topic, resulting in misclassifications.
4.5.4. Error Categories and Mitigation Strategies
Based on the error analysis across tasks, we categorize the errors into three main types and propose mitigation strategies for each, as shown in
Table 14:
Language-Specific Pre-processing: Integrating pre-processing techniques tailored to Chinese, such as idiomatic expression handling and negation detection, can reduce the frequency of errors related to language-specific nuances.
Advanced Contextual Embeddings: Using more sophisticated contextual embedding techniques, such as hierarchical attention or multi-task learning, can help resolve errors arising from ambiguous contexts, particularly in tasks like NER and text classification.
Data Augmentation: Increasing the diversity of training data and applying targeted data augmentation techniques can help mitigate issues related to data sparsity, particularly in cases where there are insufficient keywords or topic-specific vocabulary.