A Fine-grained Sentiment Analysis of App Reviews using Large Language Models: An Evaluation Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07162v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 10:21:13 GMT
• Title: A Fine-grained Sentiment Analysis of App Reviews using Large Language Models: An Evaluation Study
• Authors: Faiz Ali Shah, Ahmed Sabir, Rajesh Sharma,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on several new tasks without updating the model's parameters. This study compares the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT, and LLama-2-chat variants, for extracting app features. Results indicate the best-performing GPT-4 model outperforms rule-based approaches by 23.6% in f1-score with zero-shot feature extraction.
• Score: 1.0787328610467801
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Analyzing user reviews for sentiment towards app features can provide valuable insights into users' perceptions of app functionality and their evolving needs. Given the volume of user reviews received daily, an automated mechanism to generate feature-level sentiment summaries of user reviews is needed. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have shown impressive performance on several new tasks without updating the model's parameters i.e. using zero or a few labeled examples. Despite these advancements, LLMs' capabilities to perform feature-specific sentiment analysis of user reviews remain unexplored. This study compares the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT, and LLama-2-chat variants, for extracting app features and associated sentiments under 0-shot, 1-shot, and 5-shot scenarios. Results indicate the best-performing GPT-4 model outperforms rule-based approaches by 23.6% in f1-score with zero-shot feature extraction; 5-shot further improving it by 6%. GPT-4 achieves a 74% f1-score for predicting positive sentiment towards correctly predicted app features, with 5-shot enhancing it by 7%. Our study suggests that LLM models are promising for generating feature-specific sentiment summaries of user reviews.

Related papers

• Language Models are Few-Shot Graders [0.12289361708127876]
  We present an ASAG pipeline leveraging state-of-the-art LLMs. We compare the grading performance of three OpenAI models: GPT-4, GPT-4o, and o1-preview. Our findings indicate that providing graded examples enhances grading accuracy, with RAG-based selection outperforming random selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T23:38:21Z)
• MedSlice: Fine-Tuned Large Language Models for Secure Clinical Note Sectioning [2.4060718165478376]
  Fine-tuned open-source LLMs can surpass proprietary models in clinical note sectioning. This study focuses on three sections: History of Present Illness, Interval History, and Assessment and Plan.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T21:32:09Z)
• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• LLM-Cure: LLM-based Competitor User Review Analysis for Feature Enhancement [0.7285835869818668]
  We propose a large language model (LLM)-based Competitive User Review Analysis for Feature Enhancement. LLM-Cure identifies and categorizes features within reviews by applying LLMs. When provided with a complaint in a user review, LLM-Cure curates highly rated (4 and 5 stars) reviews in competing apps related to the complaint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T04:17:21Z)
• See What LLMs Cannot Answer: A Self-Challenge Framework for Uncovering LLM Weaknesses [51.975495361024606]
  We propose a Self-Challenge evaluation framework with human-in-the-loop. Starting from seed instances that GPT-4 fails to answer, we prompt GPT-4 to summarize error patterns that can be used to generate new instances. We then build a benchmark, SC-G4, consisting of 1,835 instances generated by GPT-4 using these patterns, with human-annotated gold responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T19:01:52Z)
• How Can I Improve? Using GPT to Highlight the Desired and Undesired Parts of Open-ended Responses [11.809647985607935]
  We explore a sequence labeling approach focused on identifying components of desired and less desired praise for providing explanatory feedback. To quantify the quality of highlighted praise components identified by GPT models, we introduced a Modified Intersection over Union (M-IoU) score. Our findings demonstrate that: (1) the M-IoU score effectively correlates with human judgment in evaluating sequence quality; (2) using two-shot prompting on GPT-3.5 resulted in decent performance in recognizing effort-based and outcome-based praise; and (3) our optimally fine-tuned GPT-3.5 model achieved M-IoU scores of 0.6
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T02:59:10Z)
• How Easy is It to Fool Your Multimodal LLMs? An Empirical Analysis on Deceptive Prompts [54.07541591018305]
  We present MAD-Bench, a benchmark that contains 1000 test samples divided into 5 categories, such as non-existent objects, count of objects, and spatial relationship. We provide a comprehensive analysis of popular MLLMs, ranging from GPT-4v, Reka, Gemini-Pro, to open-sourced models, such as LLaVA-NeXT and MiniCPM-Llama3. While GPT-4o achieves 82.82% accuracy on MAD-Bench, the accuracy of any other model in our experiments ranges from 9% to 50%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T18:31:27Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• GPT4Vis: What Can GPT-4 Do for Zero-shot Visual Recognition? [82.40761196684524]
  This paper centers on the evaluation of GPT-4's linguistic and visual capabilities in zero-shot visual recognition tasks. We conduct extensive experiments to evaluate GPT-4's performance across images, videos, and point clouds. Our findings show that GPT-4, enhanced with rich linguistic descriptions, significantly improves zero-shot recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T11:29:10Z)
• Automated title and abstract screening for scoping reviews using the GPT-4 Large Language Model [0.0]
  GPTscreenR is a package for the R statistical programming language that uses the GPT-4 Large Language Model (LLM) to automatically screen sources. In validation against consensus human reviewer decisions, GPTscreenR performed similarly to an alternative zero-shot technique, with a sensitivity of 71%, specificity of 89%, and overall accuracy of 84%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T05:30:43Z)
• Evaluation Metrics in the Era of GPT-4: Reliably Evaluating Large Language Models on Sequence to Sequence Tasks [9.801767683867125]
  We provide a preliminary and hybrid evaluation on three NLP benchmarks using both automatic and human evaluation. We find that ChatGPT consistently outperforms many other popular models according to human reviewers on the majority of metrics. We also find that human reviewers rate the gold reference as much worse than the best models' outputs, indicating the poor quality of many popular benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T20:17:09Z)
• ExtractGPT: Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models for Product Attribute Value Extraction [52.14681890859275]
  E-commerce platforms require structured product data in the form of attribute-value pairs. BERT-based extraction methods require large amounts of task-specific training data. This paper explores using large language models (LLMs) as a more training-data efficient and robust alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T07:39:00Z)
• Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models [66.12432440863816]
  We propose Prometheus, a fully open-source Large Language Model (LLM) that is on par with GPT-4's evaluation capabilities. Prometheus scores a Pearson correlation of 0.897 with human evaluators when evaluating with 45 customized score rubrics. Prometheus achieves the highest accuracy on two human preference benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T16:50:08Z)
• Instances Need More Care: Rewriting Prompts for Instances with LLMs in the Loop Yields Better Zero-Shot Performance [11.595274304409937]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized zero-shot task performance. Current methods using trigger phrases such as "Let's think step by step" remain limited. This study introduces PRomPTed, an approach that optimize the zero-shot prompts for individual task instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T14:51:34Z)
• Split and Merge: Aligning Position Biases in Large Language Model based Evaluators [23.38206418382832]
  PORTIA is an alignment-based system designed to mimic human comparison strategies to calibrate position bias. Our results show that PORTIA markedly enhances the consistency rates for all the models and comparison forms tested. It rectifies around 80% of the position bias instances within the GPT-4 model, elevating its consistency rate up to 98%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T14:38:58Z)
• Exploring Small Language Models with Prompt-Learning Paradigm for Efficient Domain-Specific Text Classification [2.410463233396231]
  Small language models (SLMs) offer significant customizability, adaptability, and cost-effectiveness for domain-specific tasks. In few-shot settings when prompt-based model fine-tuning is possible, T5-base, a typical SLM with 220M parameters, achieve approximately 75% accuracy with limited labeled data. In zero-shot settings with a fixed model, we underscore a pivotal observation that, although the GPT-3.5-turbo equipped with around 154B parameters garners an accuracy of 55.16%, the power of well designed prompts becomes evident.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-26T09:24:46Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)
• Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agents [56.104476412839944]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks. This paper investigates generative LLMs for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval (IR) To address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval. To improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T10:16:03Z)
• GPT-4 Technical Report [116.90398195245983]
  GPT-4 is a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. It exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T17:15:04Z)
• Automating App Review Response Generation [67.58267006314415]
  We propose a novel approach RRGen that automatically generates review responses by learning knowledge relations between reviews and their responses. Experiments on 58 apps and 309,246 review-response pairs highlight that RRGen outperforms the baselines by at least 67.4% in terms of BLEU-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T05:23:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.