mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Using LLMs to Establish Implicit User Sentiment of Software Desirability

arXiv 2408.01527 ↗First posted 2 Aug 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This study explores the use of LLMs for providing quantitative zero-shot sentiment analysis of implicit software desirability, addressing a critical challenge in product evaluation where traditional review scores, though convenient, fail to capture the richness of qualitative user feedback. Innovations include establishing a method that 1) works with qualitative user experience data without the need for explicit review scores, 2) focuses on implicit user satisfaction, and 3) provides scaled numerical sentiment analysis, offering a more nuanced understanding of user sentiment, instead of simply classifying sentiment as positive, neutral, or negative. Data is collected using the Microsoft Product Desirability Toolkit (PDT), a well-known qualitative user experience analysis tool. For initial exploration, the PDT metric was given to users of two software systems. PDT data was fed through several LLMs (Claude Sonnet 3 and 3.5, GPT4, and GPT4o) and through a leading transfer learning technique, Twitter-Roberta-Base-Sentiment, and Vader, a leading sentiment analysis tool. Each system was asked to evaluate the data in two ways, by looking at the sentiment expressed in the PDT word/explanation pairs; and by looking at the sentiment expressed by the users in their grouped selection of five words and explanations, as a whole. Each LLM provided a sentiment score, its confidence (low, medium, high) in the score, and an explanation of the score. All LLMs tested were able to statistically detect user sentiment from the users' grouped data, whereas TRBS and Vader were not. The confidence and explanation of confidence provided by the LLMs assisted in understanding user sentiment. This study adds deeper understanding of evaluating user experiences, toward the goal of creating a universal tool that quantifies implicit sentiment.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Aug 2024.

Builds on

8 of 40 references.

References · 8

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2018Deep Learning for Sentiment Analysis : A Surveycited by 139
  3. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good Sentiment Analyzer? A Preliminary Studycited by 96
  4. 2022TweetNLP: Cutting-Edge Natural Language Processing for Social Mediacited by 71
  5. 2024If in a Crowdsourced Data Annotation Pipeline, a GPT-4cited by 38
  6. 2020Sentiment Analysis Based on Deep Learning: A Comparative Studycited by 37
  7. 2016Sentiment Analysis of Twitter Data for Predicting Stock Market Movementscited by 34
  8. 2023Applying BERT and ChatGPT for Sentiment Analysis of Lyme Disease in Scientific Literaturecited by 26

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

4 papers.