Quality-Aware Review Selection Based on Product Feature Taxonomy

  • Nan Tian
  • Yue Xu
  • Yuefeng Li
  • Gabriella Pasi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9460)


User-generated information such as online reviews has become increasingly significant for customers in decision making processes. Meanwhile, as the volume of online reviews proliferates, there is an insistent demand to help users in tackling the information overload problem. A considerable amount of research has addressed the problem of extracting useful information from overwhelming reviews; among the proposed approaches we remind review summarization and review selection. Particularly, to address the issue of reducing redundant information, researchers attempt to select a small set of reviews to represent the entire review corpus by preserving its statistical properties (e.g., opinion distribution). However, a significant drawback of the existing works is that they only measure the utility of the extracted reviews as a whole without considering the quality of each individual review. As a result, the set of chosen reviews may consist of low-quality ones even if its statistical property is close to that of the original review corpus, which is not preferred by the users. In this paper, we propose a review selection method which takes the reviews’ quality into consideration during the selection process. Specifically, we examine the relationships between product features based upon a domain ontology to capture the review characteristics based on which to select reviews that have good quality and to preserve the opinion distribution as well. Our experimental results based on real world review datasets demonstrate that our proposed approach is feasible and able to improve the performance of the review selection effectively.


Review selection Review quality Product feature taxonomy 


  1. 1.
    Djuana, E., Xu, Y., Li, Y., Cox, C.: Personalization in tag ontology learning for recommendation making. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services, pp. 368–377. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hai, Z., Cong, G., Chang, K., Liu, W., Cheng, P.: Coarse-to-fine review selection via supervised joint aspect and sentiment model. In: Proceedings of the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 617–626. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kim, S.-M., Pantel, P., Chklovski, T., Pennacchiotti, M.: Automatically assessing review helpfulness. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 423–430 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lappas, T., Crovella, M., Terzi, E.: Selecting a characteristic set of reviews. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 832–840. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lau, R.Y.K., Song, D., Li, Y., Cheung, T.C.H., Hao, J.-X.: Toward a fuzzy domain ontology extraction method for adaptive e-Learning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 21(6), 800–813 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu, J., Cao, Y., Lin, C. Y., Huang, Y., Zhou, M.: Low-quality product review detection in opinion summarization. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), pp. 334–342 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, Y., Huang, X., An, A., Yu, X.: Modeling and predicting the helpfulness of online reviews. In: IEEE Eighth International Conference on Data Mining ICDM 2008, pp. 443–452 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lu, Y., Tsaparas, P., Ntoulas, A., Polanyi, L.: Exploiting social context for review quality prediction. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 691–700. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Mahony, M. P., Smyth, B.: Using readability tests to predict helpful product reviews. In: Proceeding RIAO 2010 Adaptivity, Personalization and Fusion of Heterogeneous Information, pp. 164–167 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tian, N., Xu, Y., Li, Y., Abdel-Hafez, A., Josang, A.: Product feature taxonomy learning based on user reviews. In: WEBIST 2014 10th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsaparas, P., Ntoulas, A., Terzi, E.: Selecting a comprehensive set of reviews. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 168–176. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu, N., Liu, H., Chen, J., He, J., Du, X.: Selecting a representative set of diverse quality reviews automatically. In: Proceedings of the 2014 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 488–496 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, Z., Varadarajan, B.: Utility scoring of product reviews. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 51–57. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhuang, L., Jing, F., Zhu, X.-Y.: Movie review mining and summarization. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 43–50. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu, X., Liu, Y., Huang, X.J., An, A.: Mining online reviews for predicting sales performance: a case study in the movie domain. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 24(4), 720–734 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Science and EngineeringQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Informatics, Systems and CommunicationUniversity of Milano BicoccaMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations