IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jwecon/v20y2025i4p371-384_5.html

Comparison of language models for wine sentiment analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Chenyu
  • Cao, Jing

Abstract

This study presents a comparative evaluation of sentiment analysis models applied to a large corpus of expert wine reviews from Wine Spectator, with the goal of classifying reviews into binary sentiment categories based on expert ratings. We assess six models: logistic regression, XGBoost, LSTM, BERT, the interpretable Attention-based Multiple Instance Classification (AMIC) model, and the generative language model LLAMA 3.1, highlighting their differences in accuracy, interpretability, and computational efficiency. While LLAMA 3.1 achieves the highest accuracy, its marginal improvement over AMIC and BERT comes at a significantly higher computational cost. Notably, AMIC matches the performance of pretrained large language models while offering superior interpretability, making it particularly effective for domain-specific tasks such as wine sentiment analysis. Through qualitative analysis of sentiment-bearing words, we demonstrate AMIC’s ability to uncover nuanced, context-dependent language patterns unique to wine reviews. These findings challenge the assumption of generative models’ universal superiority and underscore the importance of aligning model selection with domain-specific requirements, especially in applications where transparency and linguistic nuance are critical.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Chenyu & Cao, Jing, 2025. "Comparison of language models for wine sentiment analysis," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 371-384, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:20:y:2025:i:4:p:371-384_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1931436125100916/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:20:y:2025:i:4:p:371-384_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jwe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.