Classification of Quality Characteristics in Online User Feedback using Linguistic Analysis, Crowdsourcing and LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.11722v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:37:07 GMT
• Title: Classification of Quality Characteristics in Online User Feedback using Linguistic Analysis, Crowdsourcing and LLMs
• Abstract summary: Online user feedback is a valuable source of quality-related feedback on software products.<n>The abundance of online user feedback warrants the automated identification of quality characteristics.<n>We investigate the viability of three approaches that could be effective in low-data settings.
• Score: 0.9565934024763957
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Software qualities such as usability or reliability are among the strongest determinants of mobile app user satisfaction and constitute a significant portion of online user feedback on software products, making it a valuable source of quality-related feedback to guide the development process. The abundance of online user feedback warrants the automated identification of quality characteristics, but the online user feedback's heterogeneity and the lack of appropriate training corpora limit the applicability of supervised machine learning. We therefore investigate the viability of three approaches that could be effective in low-data settings: language patterns (LPs) based on quality-related keywords, instructions for crowdsourced micro-tasks, and large language model (LLM) prompts. We determined the feasibility of each approach and then compared their accuracy. For the complex multiclass classification of quality characteristics, the LP-based approach achieved a varied precision (0.38-0.92) depending on the quality characteristic, and low recall; crowdsourcing achieved the best average accuracy in two consecutive phases (0.63, 0.72), which could be matched by the best-performing LLM condition (0.66) and a prediction based on the LLMs' majority vote (0.68). Our findings show that in this low-data setting, the two approaches that use crowdsourcing or LLMs instead of involving experts achieve accurate classifications, while the LP-based approach has only limited potential. The promise of crowdsourcing and LLMs in this context might even extend to building training corpora.

Related papers

• (Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models [0.0]
  This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of Large Language Models (LLMs) outputs.<n>An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings.<n>Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T14:31:07Z)
• Enhancing the Medical Context-Awareness Ability of LLMs via Multifaceted Self-Refinement Learning [49.559151128219725]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown great promise in the medical domain, achieving strong performance on several benchmarks.<n>However, they continue to underperform in real-world medical scenarios, which often demand stronger context-awareness.<n>We propose Multifaceted Self-Refinement (MuSeR), a data-driven approach that enhances LLMs' context-awareness along three key facets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T08:13:23Z)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• A Confidence-Diversity Framework for Calibrating AI Judgement in Accessible Qualitative Coding Tasks [0.0]
  Confidence-diversity calibration is a quality assessment framework for accessible coding tasks.<n>Analysing 5,680 coding decisions from eight state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that mean self-confidence tracks inter-model agreement closely.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T03:47:10Z)
• Validating LLM-Generated Relevance Labels for Educational Resource Search [2.2175950967382487]
  We release a dataset of 401 human relevance judgements from a user study involving teaching professionals performing search tasks related to lesson planning.<n>Using domain-specific frameworks, LLMs achieved strong agreement with human judgements.<n>System-level evaluation showed that LLM judgements reliably identified top-performing retrieval approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T08:14:45Z)
• Value Compass Benchmarks: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs.<n> aligning their values with humans has become imperative for their responsible development.<n>There still lack evaluations of LLMs values that fulfill three desirable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• PersoBench: Benchmarking Personalized Response Generation in Large Language Models [6.8046587254152735]
  We present a new benchmark, PersoBench, to evaluate the personalization ability of large language models (LLMs) in persona-aware dialogue generation. Our analysis, conducted on three well-known persona-aware datasets, evaluates multiple dimensions of response quality, including fluency, diversity, coherence, and personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T07:29:41Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback [78.60644407028022]
  We introduce MINT, a benchmark that evaluates large language models' ability to solve tasks with multi-turn interactions. LLMs generally benefit from tools and language feedback, with performance gains of 1-8% for each turn of tool use. LLMs evaluated, supervised instruction-finetuning (SIFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) generally hurt multi-turn capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-19T15:25:42Z)
• From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuning [52.257422715393574]
  We introduce a self-guided methodology for Large Language Models (LLMs) to autonomously discern and select cherry samples from open-source datasets. Our key innovation, the Instruction-Following Difficulty (IFD) metric, emerges as a pivotal metric to identify discrepancies between a model's expected responses and its intrinsic generation capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T09:45:29Z)

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.