Leveraging the OPT Large Language Model for Sentiment Analysis of Game Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatically extracting players' sentiments about games can help game developers to better understand the aspects of their games that players like or dislike. Our prior work showed that traditional sentiment analysis techniques do not perform well on game reviews. However, the Natural Language Processing (NLP) field has seen a steep progress in recent years. In this letter, we follow up on our prior work and investigate how a state-of-the-art large language model (OPT-175B) performs on the sentiment classification of game reviews. We manually analyze the game reviews wrongly classified by OPT-175B to better understand the issues that affect the performance of that model and how those issues compare to the challenges faced by traditional classifiers. We found that OPT-175B achieves (far) better performance than traditional sentiment classifiers, with a 72%-increased F-measure and a 30%-increased AUC compared to the best traditional classifier studied in our prior work. We also found that common challenges of traditional classifiers, such as reviews with game comparisons and negative terminology, have been mostly solved by the OPT-175B model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".