What sentiment analysis can't see: Measuring whether customers were helped, and what went wrong, across 70,000 support conversations
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:What sentiment analysis can't see: Measuring whether customers were helped, and what went wrong, across 70,000 support conversations
Abstract:Most companies read their customer support data at scale using sentiment analysis, which measures how customers sound rather than whether they were satisfied with the result. We tested a richer alternative on 70,450 support conversations from a leading online fundraising platform: alongside tone, we used GPT-5.4 to estimate each customer's satisfaction and to flag whether they reported a concrete problem, then validated all three readings against the 1-to-5 ratings customers left on the conversations they rated. The satisfaction estimate tracked those ratings far better than sentiment did, correlating at 0.47 against 0.36 and flagging unhappy customers with far fewer false alarms. The structured read also sees what sentiment cannot: tone and satisfaction disagree in 44% of conversations, a single "Neutral" label hides everything from quietly satisfied customers to ones who quietly gave up, and the largest group of all is "tolerated friction," customers who are satisfied but still reporting a fixable problem, a standing issue that no sentiment-based dashboard can surface. The broader finding is that LLM-based annotation can capture far more than the tonality of a customer's language, offering strong potential for new business metrics grounded instead in the customer's state (whether they were satisfied) and the cause of their problem extracted directly from the raw textual data of interactions and feedback.
| Comments: | 25 pages, 6 figures |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.19698 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2606.19698v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.19698
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
References & Citations
Bookmark
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
GRPO, Dr. GRPO, and DAPO Are Three Operations on One Number: The Group-Standard-Deviation Identity
Jul 2
-
Testing Frontier Large Language Models' Physics Literacy in Parallel Physical Worlds
Jul 2
-
EPC: A Standardized Protocol for Measuring Evaluator Preference Dynamics in LLM Agent Systems
Jul 2
-
Mapping the Evaluation Frontier: An Empirical Survey of the Bias-Reliability Tradeoff Across Eleven Evaluator-Agent Conditions
Jul 2
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.