Mining User Requirements from Application Store Reviews Using Frame Semantics

  • Nishant Jha
  • Anas MahmoudEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10153)


Context and motivation: Research on mining user reviews in mobile application (app) stores has noticeably advanced in the past few years. The majority of the proposed techniques rely on classifying the textual description of user reviews into different categories of technically informative user requirements and uninformative feedback. Question/Problem: Relying on the textual attributes of reviews often produces high dimensional models. This increases the complexity of the classifier and can lead to overfitting problems. Principal ideas/results: We propose a novel semantic approach for app review classification. The proposed approach is based on the notion of semantic role labeling, or characterizing the lexical meaning of text in terms of semantic frames. Semantic frames help to generalize from text (individual words) to more abstract scenarios (contexts). This reduces the dimensionality of the data and enhances the predictive capabilities of the classifier. Three datasets of user reviews are used to conduct our experimental analysis. Results show that semantic frames can be used to generate lower dimensional and more accurate models in comparison to text classification methods. Contribution: A novel semantic approach for extracting user requirements from app reviews. The proposed approach enables a more efficient classification process and reduces the chance of overfitting.


Requirements elicitation Application stores Classification 



This work was supported in part by the Louisiana Board of Regents Research Competitiveness Subprogram (LA BoR-RCS), contract number: LEQSF(2015-18)-RD-A-07.


  1. 1.
    Agarwal, A., Balasubramanian, S., Kotalwar, A., Zheng, J., Rambow, O.: Frame semantic tree kernels for social network extraction from text. In: Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 211–219 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, C., Fillmore, C., Lowe, J.: The Berkeley framenet project. In: International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 86–90 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blei, D., Ng, A., Jordan, M.: Latent dirichlet allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 993–1022 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W. (eds.): The Adaptive Web: Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). pp. 335–336Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burges, C.: A tutorial on support vector machines for pattern recognition. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2(2), 121–167 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carreńo, G., Winbladh, K.: Analysis of user comments: an approach for software requirements evolution. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 582–591 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, N., Lin, J., Hoi, S., Xiao, X., Zhang, B.: AR-Miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 767–778 (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das, D., Schneider, N., Chen, D., Smith, N.: SEMAFOR 1.0: A probabilistic frame-semantic parser (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dean, A., Voss, D.: Design and Analysis of Experiments. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fillmore, C.: Frame semantics and the nature of language. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, pp. 20–32 (1976)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleischman, M., Kwon, N., Hovy, E.: Maximum entropy models for FrameNet classification. In: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 49–56 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guzman, E., Maalej, W.: How do users like this feature? A fine grained sentiment analysis of app reviews. In: Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 153–162 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hasa, K., Ng, V.: Frame semantics for stance classification. In: Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 124–132 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iacob, C., Harrison, R.: Retrieving and analyzing mobile apps feature requests from online reviews. In: Mining Software Repositories, pp. 41–44 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joachims, T.: Text categorization with support vector machines: learning with many relevant features. In: Nédellec, C., Rouveirol, C. (eds.) ECML 1998. LNCS, vol. 1398, pp. 137–142. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). doi: 10.1007/BFb0026683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kohavi, R.: A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1137–1143 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kumar Sinha, S.: Answering Questions About Complex Events. University of California at Berkeley (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langley, P., Iba, W., Thompson, K.: An analysis of Bayesian classifiers. In: National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 223–228 (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lovins, J.: Development of a stemming algorithm. Mech. Transl. Comput. Linguist. 11, 22–31 (1968)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maalej, W., Nabil, H.: Bug report, feature request, or simply praise? On automatically classifying app reviews. In: Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 116–125 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin, W., Harman, M., Jia, Y., Sarro, F., Zhang, Y.: The app sampling problem for app store mining. In: Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories, pp. 123–133 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCallum, A., Nigam, K.: A comparison of event models for naive Bayes text classification. In: AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, pp. 41–48 (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitchell, T.: Machine Learning. McGraw-Hill, New York City (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moschitti, A., Morarescu, P., Harabagiu, S.: Open domain information extraction via automatic semantic labeling. In: The Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, pp. 397–401 (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pagano, D., Maalej, W.: User feedback in the AppStore: an empirical study. In: Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 125–134 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Panichella, S., Di Sorbo, A., Guzman, E., Visaggio, C., Canfora, G., Gall, H.: How can I improve my app? Classifying user reviews for software maintenance and evolution. In: International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution, pp. 281–290 (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Platt, J.: Fast training of Support Vector Machines using sequential minimal optimization. In: Schoelkopf, B., Burges, C., Smola, A. (eds.) Advances in Kernel Methods - Support Vector Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Quinlan, J.: Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1(1), 81–106 (1986)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shen, D., Lapata, M.: Using semantic roles to improve question answering. In: Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, pp. 12–21 (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steinwart, I.: On the influence of the kernel on the consistency of Support Vector Machines. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2, 67–93 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Üstün, B., Melssen, W., Buydens, L.: Facilitating the application of support vector regression by using a universal Pearson VII function based kernel. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 81, 29–40 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xie, B., Passonneau, R., Wu, L., Creamer, G.: Semantic frames to predict stock price movement. In: Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 873–883 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Division of Computer Science and EngineeringLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations