Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Exploring Zero-Shot App Review Classification with ChatGPT: Challenges and Potential

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.04759 v1 pith:4RPIPSR5 submitted 2025-05-07 cs.SE cs.AI

Exploring Zero-Shot App Review Classification with ChatGPT: Challenges and Potential

classification cs.SE cs.AI
keywords reviewschatgptreviewcategoriesclassificationclassifyingfeedbackfunctional
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

App reviews are a critical source of user feedback, offering valuable insights into an app's performance, features, usability, and overall user experience. Effectively analyzing these reviews is essential for guiding app development, prioritizing feature updates, and enhancing user satisfaction. Classifying reviews into functional and non-functional requirements play a pivotal role in distinguishing feedback related to specific app features (functional requirements) from feedback concerning broader quality attributes, such as performance, usability, and reliability (non-functional requirements). Both categories are integral to informed development decisions. Traditional approaches to classifying app reviews are hindered by the need for large, domain-specific datasets, which are often costly and time-consuming to curate. This study explores the potential of zero-shot learning with ChatGPT for classifying app reviews into four categories: functional requirement, non-functional requirement, both, or neither. We evaluate ChatGPT's performance on a benchmark dataset of 1,880 manually annotated reviews from ten diverse apps spanning multiple domains. Our findings demonstrate that ChatGPT achieves a robust F1 score of 0.842 in review classification, despite certain challenges and limitations. Additionally, we examine how factors such as review readability and length impact classification accuracy and conduct a manual analysis to identify review categories more prone to misclassification.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.