skip to main content
10.1145/2914586.2914598acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshtConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing Review Recommendation Techniques under a Ranking Perspective

Authors Info & Claims
Published:10 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Reading online reviews before a purchase is a customary action nowadays. Nevertheless, the increasing volume of reviews works as a barrier to their effectiveness so that many approaches try to predict reviews' quality, which is not standardized to all users due to different backgrounds and preferences. Thus, recommending reviews in a personalized fashion is probably more accurate. Here, we analyze methods for recommending reviews that have not been compared against each other yet. Our experiments consider parameter tuning and comparison through statistical tests. Such study allows to understand the state-of-the-art and to evidence potential improvement directions. Our results show that assessing under a ranking perspective, model simplicity and observed features are important traits for this problem, being Support Vector Regression the best solution.

References

  1. G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin. Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng., 17(6):734--749, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. Agarwal and B.-C. Chen. Regression-based latent factor models. In Procs. of KDD, Paris, France, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Anderson. Local consumer review survey 2014, 2014. https://www.brightlocal.com/2014/07/01/local-consumer-review-survey-2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. L. Anderson and J. R. Magruder. Learning from the crowd: Regression discontinuity estimates of the effects of an online review database. Economic Journal, 122(563):957--989, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. S. Balakrishnan and S. Chopra. Collaborative ranking. In Procs. of WSDM, Seattle, WA, USA, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. K. Balog and H. Ramampiaro. Cumulative citation recommendation: Classification vs. ranking. In Procs. of SIGIR, Dublin, Ireland, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. G. Booth and J. P. Hobert. Maximizing generalized linear mixed model likelihoods with an automated monte carlo em algorithm. JRRS: B, 61(1):265--285, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. C. J. Burges. From RankNet to LambdaRank to LambdaMART: An overview. Technical Report MSR-TR-2010--82, Microsoft Research, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. D. Canuto et al. A comparative study of learning-to-rank techniques for tag recommendation. JIDM, 4(3):453--468, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. O. Chapelle and Y. Chang. Yahoo! learning to rank challenge overview. In Procs. of the Yahoo! Learning to Rank Challenge - ICML, Bellevue, WA, USA, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. O. Chapelle and S. S. Keerthi. Efficient algorithms for ranking with SVMs. IR, 13(3):201--215, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. O. Chapelle, D. Metlzer, Y. Zhang, and P. Grinspan. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. In Procs. of CIKM, Hong Kong, China, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Cremonesi, Y. Koren, and R. Turrin. Performance of recommender algorithms on top-n recommendation tasks. In Procs. of RecSys, Barcelona, Spain, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. H. Friedman. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics, 29(5):pp. 1189--1232, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. S. Holm. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6(2):65--70, 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Jain. The art of computer systems performance analysis - techniques for experimental design, measurement, simulation, and modeling. Wiley, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. T. Joachims. Training linear SVMs in linear time. In Procs. of KDD, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Y. Koren. Factorization meets the neighborhood: A multifaceted collaborative filtering model. In Procs. of KDD, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Y. Koren, R. Bell, and C. Volinsky. Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Commun. ACM, 42(8):30--37, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. S. Lee and J. Y. Choeh. Predicting the helpfulness of online reviews using multilayer perceptron neural networks. Expert Syst. Appl., 41(6):3041--3046, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. H. Li. A short introduction to learning to rank. IEICE Transactions, 94-D(10):1854--1862, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Y. Liu, X. Huang, A. An, and X. Yu. Modeling and predicting the helpfulness of online reviews. In Procs. of ICDM, Miami, FL, USA, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. W. Lu, S. Chen, K. Li, and L. V. S. Lakshmanan. Show me the money: Dynamic recommendations for revenue maximization. PVLDB, 7(14):1785--1796, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Y. Lu et al. Exploiting social context for review quality prediction. In Procs. of WWW, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. Lucchese et al. Quickscorer: A fast algorithm to rank documents with additive ensembles of regression trees. In Procs. of SIGIR, Santiago, Chile, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. A. Machanavajjhala, A. Korolova, and A. D. Sarma. Personalized social recommendations: Accurate or private. PVLDB, 4(7):440--450, Apr. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. L. Martin and P. Pu. Prediction of helpful reviews using emotions extraction. In Procs. of AAAI, Québec City, Canada, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. G. A. Miller. WordNet: A lexical database for english. Commun. ACM, 38(11):39--41, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Moghaddam, M. Jamali, and M. Ester. ETF: Extended Tensor Factorization model for personalizing prediction of review helpfulness. In Procs. of the WSDM, Seattle, WA, USA, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. K. P. Murphy. Machine Learning: A Probabilistic Perspective. The MIT Press, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. F. e. a. Pedregosa. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12(Oct):2825--2830, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. F. Ricci et al. Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer-Verlag, 1st edition, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Y. Shi, M. Larson, and A. Hanjalic. Collaborative filtering beyond the user-item matrix: A survey of the state of the art and future challenges. ACM Comput. Surv., 47(1):3:1--3:45, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. A. J. Smola and B. Schölkopf. A tutorial on support vector regression. Statistics and Computing, 14(3):199--222, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. J. Tang et al. Context-aware review helpfulness rating prediction. In Procs. of RecSys, Hong Kong, China, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. V. N. Vapnik. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer-Verlag, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. M. Vasconcelos, J. M. Almeida, and M. A. Gonçalves. Predicting the popularity of micro-reviews: A foursquare case study. Information Sciences, 325:355--374, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. H. Yin et al. Challenging the long tail recommendation. PVLDB, 5(9):896--907, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. T. J. Ypma. Historical development of the Newton-Raphson method. SIAM Rev., 37(4):531--551, Dec. 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. K. Zhang, R. Narayanan, and A. Choudhary. Voice of the customers: Mining online customer reviews for product feature-based ranking. In Procs. of the WOSN, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. R. Zhang and T. Tran. An information gain-based approach for recommending useful product reviews. Knowl. Inf. Syst., 26(3):419--434, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Assessing Review Recommendation Techniques under a Ranking Perspective

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          HT '16: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
          July 2016
          354 pages
          ISBN:9781450342476
          DOI:10.1145/2914586

          Copyright © 2016 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 10 July 2016

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          HT '16 Paper Acceptance Rate16of54submissions,30%Overall Acceptance Rate378of1,158submissions,33%

          Upcoming Conference

          HT '24
          35th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
          September 10 - 13, 2024
          Poznan , Poland

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader