When people share experiences online, they often express thoughts in two ways: a star rating and a written review. In sentiment analysis, ratings are widely used as convenient weak labels for textual sentiment, yet whether the two actually agree is rarely questioned. This study investigates sentiment-rating incongruence, where the sentiment expressed in review text differs from the sentiment implied by the assigned star rating, in Sri Lankan tourism attraction reviews. A dataset of 16,156 reviews from 2010 to 2023 is analyzed using a transformer-based sentiment pipeline that derives textual sentiment independently of assigned ratings. Incongruence occurs in 18.6% of reviews and falls into six directional patterns, with Conservative Rater and Obligatory 5-Star behaviors accounting for the majority of mismatches. Prevalence also varies across venue types, with museums showing the highest rates. Statistical tests, logistic regression, Random Forest, and SHAP analysis identify venue type, reviewer expertise, review length, and temporal factors as contributors to rating-text divergence. Overall, this study demonstrates that star ratings are not interchangeable with textual sentiment and should be validated before being treated as ground-truth labels in NLP.
Online travel platforms generate vast volumes of user-generated hotel reviews, offering rich opportunities to understand traveler experiences at scale. However, transforming unstructured textual feedback into structured, actionable insights remains a challenging task. This paper presents SentimentLens, a scalable analysis system based on Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis that performs knowledge extraction from unstructured hotel reviews and organizes them into interpretable service categories. SentimentLens integrates aspect term extraction, aspect sentiment classification, semantic category assignment, and multi-level analytical modules to support region-level, hotel-level, and category-level evaluation. The system is designed to operate across different geographic contexts and hospitality settings. To demonstrate its practical utility, we apply SentimentLens to a large real-world dataset of over 10,000 publicly available hotel reviews. Through extensive analysis, the framework reveals how traveler sentiment varies across regions, service categories, and hotel archetypes. We further implement a cross-modal reconciliation of textual sentiment and numerical ratings to identify latent operational conflicts, structural inconsistencies in service quality, and high-impact improvement opportunities using importance--performance and entropy-based analyses. The results show that SentimentLens effectively transforms large-scale unstructured reviews into actionable intelligence, supporting data-driven decision-making for hospitality management and tourism policy. While demonstrated using a national case study, the proposed system is generalizable to other destinations and review-driven service domains.
Online reviews provide valuable insights into the perceived quality of facets of a product or service. While aspect-based sentiment analysis has focused on extracting these facets from reviews, there is less work understanding the impact of each aspect on overall perception. This is particularly challenging given correlations among aspects, making it difficult to isolate the effects of each. This paper introduces a methodology based on recent advances in text-based causal analysis, specifically CausalBERT, to disentangle the effect of each factor on overall review ratings. We enhance CausalBERT with three key improvements: temperature scaling for better calibrated treatment assignment estimates; hyperparameter optimization to reduce confound overadjustment; and interpretability methods to characterize discovered confounds. In this work, we treat the textual mentions in reviews as proxies for real-world attributes. We validate our approach on real and semi-synthetic data from over 600K reviews of U.S. K-12 schools. We find that the proposed enhancements result in more reliable estimates, and that perception of school administration and performance on benchmarks are significant drivers of overall school ratings.
The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.