LLM-Cure: LLM-Based Competitor User Review Analysis for Feature Enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exponential growth of the mobile app market underscores the importance of constant innovation and rapid response to user demands. As user satisfaction is paramount to the success of a mobile application (app), developers typically rely on user reviews, which represent user feedback that includes ratings and comments to identify areas for improvement. However, the sheer volume of user reviews poses challenges in manual analysis, necessitating automated approaches. Existing automated approaches either analyze only the target app’s reviews, neglecting the comparison of similar features to competitors or fail to provide suggestions for feature enhancement. To address these gaps, we propose a Large Language Model (LLM)-based Competitive User Review Analysis for Feature Enhancement) ( LLM-Cure ), an approach powered by LLMs to automatically generate suggestions for mobile app feature improvements. More specifically, LLM-Cure identifies and categorizes features within reviews by applying LLMs. When provided with a complaint in a user review, LLM-Cure curates highly rated (4 and 5 stars) reviews in competing apps related to the complaint and proposes potential improvements tailored to the target application. We evaluate LLM-Cure on 1,056,739 reviews of 70 popular Android apps. Our evaluation demonstrates that LLM-Cure significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art approaches in assigning features to reviews by up to 13% in F1-score, 16% in recall, and 11% in precision. Additionally, LLM-Cure demonstrates its capability to provide suggestions for resolving user complaints. We verify the suggestions using the release notes that reflect the changes of features in the target mobile app. LLM-Cure achieves a promising average of 73% of the implementation of the provided suggestions, demonstrating its potential for competitive feature enhancement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".