User Review Writing via Interview with Dialogue Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.07070v1
• Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2026 07:02:11 GMT
• Title: User Review Writing via Interview with Dialogue Systems
• Abstract summary: We propose a novel use of dialogue systems to facilitate user review creation.<n>We implemented our system using GPT-4 and conducted comparative experiments from the perspectives of system users and review readers.<n>We also evaluated the reviews from the reader' perspective and found that our system-generated reviews are more helpful than those written by humans.
• Score: 0.9576327614980396
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: User reviews on e-commerce and review sites are crucial for making purchase decisions, although creating detailed reviews is time-consuming and labor-intensive. In this study, we propose a novel use of dialogue systems to facilitate user review creation by generating reviews from information gathered during interview dialogues with users. To validate our approach, we implemented our system using GPT-4 and conducted comparative experiments from the perspectives of system users and review readers. The results indicate that participants who used our system rated their interactions positively. Additionally, reviews generated by our system required less editing to achieve user satisfaction compared to those by the baseline. We also evaluated the reviews from the reader' perspective and found that our system-generated reviews are more helpful than those written by humans. Despite challenges with the fluency of the generated reviews, our method offers a promising new approach to review writing.

Related papers

• Few-Shot and Training-Free Review Generation via Conversational Prompting [2.0305676256390934]
  Real-world applications often face few-shot and training-free situations.<n>We propose Conversational Prompting, a lightweight method that reformulates user reviews as multi-turn conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T06:36:08Z)
• The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors [45.98233565214142]
  We identify four key aspects of review comments that drive the utility for authors: Actionability, Grounding & Specificity, Verifiability, and Helpfulness.<n>We collect 1,430 human-labeled review comments and scale our data with 10k synthetically labeled comments for training purposes.<n>We benchmark fine-tuned models for assessing review comments on these aspects and generating rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-31T14:19:07Z)
• User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal [59.120335322495436]
  We analyze user feedback in the user-LLM conversation logs, providing insights into when and why such feedback occurs.<n>Second, we study harvesting learning signals from such implicit user feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T23:33:29Z)
• Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025 [115.86204862475864]
  Review Feedback Agent provides automated feedback on vague comments, content misunderstandings, and unprofessional remarks to reviewers.<n>It was implemented at ICLR 2025 as a large randomized control study.<n> 27% of reviewers who received feedback updated their reviews, and over 12,000 feedback suggestions from the agent were incorporated by those reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T22:01:25Z)
• From Voice to Value: Leveraging AI to Enhance Spoken Online Reviews on the Go [21.811104609265158]
  We developed Vocalizer, a mobile application that enables users to provide reviews through voice input.<n>Our findings show that users frequently utilized the AI agent to add more detailed information to their reviews.<n>We also show how interactive AI features can improve users self-efficacy and willingness to share reviews online.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T21:59:47Z)
• Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
  In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback. The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied. We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z)
• Improving Conversational Question Answering Systems after Deployment using Feedback-Weighted Learning [69.42679922160684]
  We propose feedback-weighted learning based on importance sampling to improve upon an initial supervised system using binary user feedback. Our work opens the prospect to exploit interactions with real users and improve conversational systems after deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-01T19:50:34Z)
• 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)
• Teddy: A System for Interactive Review Analysis [17.53582677866512]
  Data scientists analyze reviews by developing rules and models to extract, aggregate, and understand information embedded in the review text. Teddy is an interactive system that enables data scientists to quickly obtain insights from reviews and improve their extraction and modeling pipelines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-15T08:19:01Z)

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.