4.7 Article

User preference mining based on fine-grained sentiment analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103013

关键词

Fine-grained sentiment analysis; User preference mining; Sequence labeling; Conditional random field (CRF)

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes fine-grained sentiment analysis for preference mining and utilizes deep neural networks to improve the performance. Experimental results on a user review data set demonstrate that the proposed approach outperforms baseline models.
User preference mining is an application of data mining that attracts increasing attention. Although most of the existing user preference mining methods achieved significant performance improvement, the sentiment tendencies of users were seldom considered. This paper proposes fine-grained sentiment analysis for preference mining. The powerful feature representation capabilities of deep neural networks have significantly improved the performance of fine-grained sentiment analysis. But two main challenges remain when using deep neural network models: incomplete user feature extraction and insufficient interaction. In response, a pre-training language model is employed to encode user features to fully explore potential interests of users, a linguistic knowledge model is introduced to assist the encoding, a multi-scale convolution neural network is adopted to capture text features at different scales and fully utilize the text information, and the fine-grained sentiment analysis task is modeled as a sequence labeling problem to explore the sentiment polarity of user evaluation. Experiments on a user review data set are used to verify the new approach. Experimental results of precision, recall rate and F1-value show that the proposed approach performs better, and is more effective than baseline models. For example, the F1-value is increased by 4.27% compared to the best performing baseline model. Findings have important implications for research and practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据