<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>A Framework to Discover Significant Product Aspects from E-commerce Product Reviews</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Saratchandra Indrakanti</string-name>
          <email>sindrakanti@ebay.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Aspect Mining, Opinion Mining, Product Reviews, , E-commerce,</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Gyanit Singh</string-name>
          <email>gysingh@ebay.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Sentiment Analysis</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>eBay Inc.</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>San Jose, California</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2018</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>Product reviews increasingly influence buying decisions on e-commerce websites. Reviewers share their experiences of using a product and provide unique insights that are often valued by other buyers and not available in seller provided descriptions. Product-specific opinions expressed by reviewers and buyer perspectives provided by them can be employed to power novel buyer-centric shopping experiences, as opposed to existing e-commerce experiences tailored to product catalogs. Product aspects that have been opined upon and collectively discussed by the reviewers in product reviews can be identified and aggregated to capture such insights. However, owing to the vast diversity of products listed on modern e-commerce platforms, usage of colloquial language in reviews and vocabulary mismatch between seller(manufacturer) and buyer terminology; identifying such significant product aspects becomes a challenging problem at scale. In this paper, we present a framework for product aspect extraction and ranking developed to identify product aspects from reviews and quantify their importance based on collective reviewer opinions. We further examine the value of incorporating domain-specific knowledge into our model, and show that domain-specific knowledge significantly improves performance of the model.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>CCS CONCEPTS</title>
      <p>• Information systems → Information extraction; Sentiment
analysis; Summarization; • Computing methodologies →
Language resources;
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).</p>
      <p>SIGIR 2018 eCom, July 2018, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
© 2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).</p>
      <p>ACM ISBN 978-x-xxxx-xxxx-x/YY/MM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>
        The browse and navigational experiences on most e-commerce
websites today are tailored to product catalogs and
manufacturerprovided product attributes. However, buyer-centric navigational
experiences constructed based on buyer-provided product insights
can potentially enhance the online shopping experience and lead
to better user engagement [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">28</xref>
        ]. For instance, the product catalog
may be associated with objective values such as 15 inch or retina
corresponding to the attribute display for a laptop, in contrast to
qualitative terminology such as crisp display or large display that
can assist buyers in their shopping journey. Meanwhile, product
reviews written by reviewers sharing their experiences with a
product, have evolved into community powered resources that provide
qualitative insights into products from a buyer perspective. By
capturing valuable buyer perspectives of products that are not available
elsewhere in seller or manufacturer provided descriptions or
metadata, reviews have been playing an increasingly important role in
shaping buying decisions on most popular e-commerce websites.
Discovering such buyer-provided product insights and opinions
from product reviews can help power novel and engaging online
shopping experiences, such as the ones shown in Figure 1.
      </p>
      <p>While manufacturer-provided attributes associated with
product catalogs generally comprise of structured metadata, product
reviews comprise of unstructured text. Product-specific insights in
natural language text can be identified by extracting opinionated
words and opinion targets, also referred to as aspects. However,
this task introduces several challenges. Product reviews are written
in a generally colloquial style as opposed to technical vocabulary,
which introduces ambiguity in identifying product-specific aspects.
For instance, in the sentence “This camera is easy to use”, use is
a colloquial term with easy to use representing a product-specific
opinion, while use in “I use a large screen” does not. Further, the
vast diversity of products listed on modern e-commerce platforms
ranging from electronics to media to art have diferences in the
nature of aspects discussed in reviews. The name of a person such
as the author in a book review can be a useful product-specific
aspect, whereas this may not be the case with respect to the name
of a person such as a friend who suggested the product in a
review about a gadget. Aspect extraction techniques must be robust
enough to account for the domain-specific nuances.</p>
      <p>Certain words that have been extensively used in reviews for a
product, may not be very informative aspects for the product. For
instance, camera is extensively used in digital cameras category.
This is not a very informative word as an aspect for a product in this
category, although it could be a meaningful aspect for a smartphone.
Further, words that capture interpersonal relationships such as
friend, brother etc. are not relevant as product aspects. Synonyms
such as Images and pictures are used interchangeably in reviews for
cameras, and a single aspect that represents them must be selected.
To that end, a scalable framework developed to identify and rank
opinionated product-specific aspects from product reviews, that
can be leveraged to power buyer-centric shopping experiences for
modern e-commerce websites is presented in this paper.</p>
      <p>In the context of this work, aspects are attributes or features of
a product discussed in reviews, upon which the reviewer expresses
an opinion. They are also referred to as opinion targets in the field
of opinion mining. For instance, battery life, screen size, camera
resolution, operating system could be aspects discussed in smartphone
reviews. Consider the following excerpt from a review for a video
game: “Compelling gameplay and story and beautiful graphics”. The
reviewer expresses the opinion compelling on the aspect gameplay.
Diferent reviewers discuss a variety of aspects in their reviews
for a product, and express varying opinions. In order to identify
important aspects for a product from its reviews, the collective
opinions expressed by reviewers on the aspects must be aggregated to
quantify their importance. This entails firstly, identifying opinion
and target word candidates (aspect extraction), and next, ranking
them to quantify reviewer emphasis (aspect ranking). To achieve
this, we propose a graph based framework to discover and rank
aspects from product reviews. In the proposed framework, first,
aspect candidates are identified from each sentence by exploiting
certain word dependencies from its sentence dependency structure.
Then, an aspect graph is constructed for a given product based
on the identified dependencies. Graph centrality measures are
employed in conjunction with domain-specific knowledge derived in
the form of structured metadata from product catalogs to quantify
the importance of aspects and rank them.</p>
      <p>
        There are several motivating factors contributing to our choice
of adopting an unsupervised approach to aspect extraction and
intuition behind incorporating domain-specific knowledge from
product catalogs as introduced above. Firstly, the framework must
be robust and able to scale across a large number of diverse product
categories present on e-commerce websites. Owing to the
constantly evolving nature of e-commerce content, inventory and
categories, unsupervised approaches are a natural fit since they do
not rely on training data. Although supervised models generally
have performed better in terms of precision and recall, procuring
properly annotated data representative of a large and diverse set of
categories of products for training supervised models such as
conditional random fields [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ] could be a daunting task. Next, we apply
domain-specific knowledge derived from manufacturer-provided
aspects (MPAs) in product catalogs as a post-processing step to
mitigate the occurrence of false positives among the extracted
aspects. While semi-supervised models that rely on seed words have
been proposed for aspect extraction [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
        ], compiling a set of seed
words for every category of products may not be feasible. Although
it is intuitive to attempt applying domain specific MPAs as seed
words, this may not be efective owing to the mismatch between
manufacturer and buyer vocabulary. Further, such domain-specific
knowledge may not be available or may be very sparse in many
product categories, as depicted in Figure 2.
      </p>
      <p>
        While aspect extraction and ranking methods have been well
researched individually, very few works have explored this as a
unified problem in conjunction with incorporating domain-specific
knowledge to improve accuracy of the methods. Enhancing
existing literature, we present a unified graph-based framework that
facilitates both identification of significant aspects from product
reviews and ranking them, while leveraging domain knowledge and
being applicable to large e-commerce websites that have a diverse
catalog of products. The authors of [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ] proposed an aspect
extraction method that selects aspects by applying dependency rules to
sentence dependency trees. We use a similar approach to aspect
extraction, however, in addition to that we developed a graph
centrality based method to rank aspects. While the intuition behind our
centrality-based ranking is comparable to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">29</xref>
        ], where the authors
proposed a graph-based algorithm inspired from pagerank to rank
aspects, we extend it to incorporate domain knowledge to the task.
      </p>
      <p>We evaluated the proposed framework on a human-judged
evaluation dataset generated by sampling product reviews from a
diverse set of e-commerce product categories. Experiments on the
evaluation dataset indicate that our framework can scale across the
thousands of diverse product categories present on e-commerce
websites. Further, we show that our approach of incorporating
domain knowledge improves positively contributes to precision of the
model. We observe a 9.8% overall improvement in mean average
precision when domain knowledge is applied.</p>
      <p>The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as
follows:
• We propose a scalable graph-based framework for aspect
extraction and ranking from e-commerce product reviews.
• We examine the benefits of applying domain-specific
knowledge to the problem of aspect extraction and ranking.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>
        Aspect extraction models have been proposed by several researchers
over the past decade. Authors of [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ] first introduced an
unsupervised model based on frequent itemset mining. An improved method
was proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ], where PMI statistics were incorporated from
an online text corpus to improve precision. A rule-based model that
leverages observed linguistic patterns from sentence dependency
trees to extract aspects was presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ]. A combination of
rules and sentence dependency structure was used to generate a
graphical structure based on sentiment and aspect pairs, and
product aspects were identified using an algorithm based on page-rank
was used to rank aspects in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">29</xref>
        ]. Generally, in the area of text
mining, graph based models that employ centrality measures to
identify significant phrases in text have proven to be efective [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ].
Discourse-level opinion graphs have been proposed by [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>
        ] to
interpret opinions and discourse relations. The authors presented an
unsupervised model to automatically select a set of rules that utilize
the sentence dependency structure in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ]. Syntactical structure of
sentences along with various statistical measures have been used
in works such as [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref23">23</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">30</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Diferent variations of topic models have been explored by
researchers in extracting aspects from reviews. Multi-grain topic
models that extends topic modeling techniques such as LDA and
PLSI to extract local and global aspects for products within a
category were proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>
        ]. LDA was applied to identify latent
topics in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] and representative words for topics were selected as
aspects. Probabilistic graphical models that extend LDA and PLSI
were proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] to extract aspects and determine a rating
based on sentiment expressed with respect to each aspect.
      </p>
      <p>
        Semi-supervised models have been introduced to guide certain
unsupervised models towards more precise aspects by using a
domain specific set of seed words. A double propagation approach
to extract opinion words and targets iteratively by bootstrapping
with a seed opinion lexicon of small size was proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
        ]. The
semi-supervised model proposed in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] uses seed words provided
for a few aspect categories and extracts and clusters aspect terms
into categories. Seed words extracted from product descriptions
were used to group reviews and a labeled extension of LDA was
used to extract aspects in a semi supervised way in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">26</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        Several supervised models have been proposed to extract aspects
from reviews. A model based on conditional random fields was
trained with features that were built using parts of speech tags of
tokens and dependency path distances in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. A model based on
Convolutional neural networks that has word embeddings provided
as input features and extended to employ linguistic patterns is
presented in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ].
3
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>METHODOLOGY</title>
      <p>
        The methodology can be structured into three major phases: 1)
Aspect extraction 2) Aspect graph construction and 3) Aspect ranking
and post-processing. An overview of the proposed methodology is
provided in Figure 3. For a given product, we first select potential
aspect candidates by applying Dependency tree pruning algorithm
(DPT) on review sentences, as part of aspect extraction. Next,
construct an aspect graph by aggregating the relations returned by DPT,
and compute centralities for nodes of the graph. We then apply
domain-specific knowledge along with other post-processing steps
aimed at reducing the occurrence of false positives and compute
a ranking of the aspects. Post-processing steps include
synonymbased clustering of aspects, compiling a list of non-exclusive aspects
that can be demoted, and applying domain-specific MPAs to boost
relevant aspects. These methods are formally described in detail in
this section.
An aspect can be defined as an attribute or feature of a product,
that is discussed in the product review content and upon which the
reviewers express an opinion. Product aspects are most frequently
nouns [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ], however certain verb forms can also occur as aspects.
It must be noted that not all nouns are aspect candidates. Consider
the following excerpt from a review: “Sound quality is amazing,
and battery lasts long enough as well”, where sound quality and
battery are aspect candidates. However, “I worked in Electronics for
35 years.” has no aspect candidates, although electronics and years
are nouns. The challenge in discovering aspect candidates mainly
involves identifying those words that 1) the reviewer has expressed
an opinion on, and 2) are attributes of the product and describe its
features.
3.2
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Aspect Extraction</title>
      <p>
        For a given product, aspect candidates are extracted from each
sentence of every review, based on its sentence dependency tree.
Sentence dependency trees capture the grammatical relations
between words that comprise a sentence. The dependencies are binary
asymmetric relations between a word identified as head (generally
a verb) and its dependents [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. The nature of the relationship is
denoted by a dependency label associated with the edge connecting
the two words in the relationship. For instance, Figure 4 depicts
the dependency tree for the following sentence: “The framerate was
high, battery life was long, the visual efects looked as polished as
today’s consoles”. A detailed description of dependency trees can
be found in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ]. The open source library Spacy [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ] is employed
to generate dependency trees owing to its combination of speed
and accuracy [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Punctuation is retained and no pre-processing
is performed prior to producing dependency trees, since
lemmatization or other pre-processing steps may afect the accuracy of
dependency tree generation. Next, we describe the sentence tree
pruning algorithm which returns dependency relations associated
with aspect candidates.
      </p>
      <p>
        3.2.1 Dependency Tree Pruning. Dependency tree pruning
algorithm (DTP) prunes the dependency tree generated for each
sentence to retain relations that are associated with aspect candidates.
Specifically, for every aspect candidate we retain the dependencies
that capture the relations between the aspect, opinion, and the head
word of the aspect. Aspect candidates are identified subject to a set
of dependency rules that are applied to the dependency tree. The
set of rules R, some of which have been defined by the authors of
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>
        ], that determine if a word is an aspect candidate, are described
below:
(1) A noun n is an aspect if there exists a parent-child relation
between n and another word a, and a is either an adjective or
an adverb. Here the set of words a that satisfy this condition
constitute the opinion.
(2) Adjective-adverb sibling rule: A noun n is selected as an
aspect, and a as the opinion if there exists a word a that shares
the same parent (head term), and a is either an adjective or
adverb.
(3) If a word v has a direct object relation with a noun n, and
v is a verb, then n is selected as an aspect, with v being the
opinion.
(4) If A verb v has a noun n as a parent (head term), and v
has a parent-child relation with another word a which is an
adjective, then n is selected as an aspect, with a being the
opinion.
(5) If a noun n1 in a conjunct relation or a prepositional relation
with another noun n2, and n2 is parent-child relation with
an adjective a, n1 is selected as an aspect with a being
(6) If a word v is in an open clausal relationship with another
word a, with v being a verb and a being an adjective or
adverb, then select v as an aspect and a as opinion.
      </p>
      <p>Given a sentence s, its dependency tree Ds : {dep ⟨w1, w2⟩},
where w1, w2 ∈ s are any two words in the sentence s with a
dependency relation dep, is generated. Aspect candidates α satisfying
atleast one of the rules in R are selected by DTP along with the
associated opinion and head word dependencies. The satisfying
relations dep ⟨headα , α ⟩ , dep ⟨Oα , α ⟩ are returned, where headα is
the head term of α and Oα is the corresponding opinion. Figure 5
shows the result produced by the algorithm for the example
sentence.
In order to capture the collective opinions expressed on aspects by
all the reviewers for a product, an aspect graph is constructed from
the relations returned by DTP. DTP is applied on each sentence in
the review corpus for a product, to return a set of relations
associated with aspect candidates for each sentence. As a pre-processing
step, the review corpus is run through a lemmatizer to identify the
canonical form of each word. The words that share the same
canonical form are replaced with a representative word selected based on
frequency of occurrence in the corpus. Each of the relations is added
to aspect graph Gp = (V , E), a directional graph constructed for the
given product P . A node η ∈ V in the graph is a tuple (w, posw , tw )
representing a word w, its parts-of-speech tag posw and its type tw
where t ∈ {head, opinion, aspect } , while the dependency relations
η1 −→ η2 returned by DTP denote edges e12 ∈ E . Weight ω12 of
the edge e12 is the frequency of such relations in the corpus. While,
weight could be extended to include other properties such as
aggregate sentiment associated with an aspect candidate, we limit it
to frequency in this discussion. Figure 6 shows an example aspect
graph constructed based on the sentence discussed previously.
3.4</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Aspect Ranking</title>
      <p>
        We rank candidate aspects based on their measured importance in
the aspect graph. To that end, we utilize graph centrality measures
for the aspect graph to quantify the importance of aspects as
expressed collectively by reviewers in the product reviews. Various
graph centrality measures exist that capture diferent properties
of a graph, and ofer varying perspectives to measuring the
importance of a node in a graph [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. The aspect ranking problem is
formulated as follows: Select top k nodes η(w, posw , tw ) ⊂ V from
aspect graph Gp = (V , E) for product p, when ranked by ranking
measure ρG and tη = aspect .
      </p>
      <p>
        3.4.1 Ranking Measures. The centrality measures used for
ranking aspects, ρG , are discussed in this section. Graph centrality
measures quantify the importance of nodes in a graph. Since importance
is subjective, there exist various centrality measures that capture
diferent properties of the structure of a graph and the influence of
specific nodes. Centrality measures have been extensively used in
varying applications such as extracting keywords from text, with
encouraging results; an overview of this area is available in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        In this work, we explore the application of in-strength
centrality and page-rank [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ] to rank the nodes in the aspect graph.
Instrength centrality for a node is defined as the sum of weights of all
incoming edges to it. It translates to the number of times a given
aspect candidate has occurred in contexts where an opinion has been
expressed about it. Although it is a simple measure, in-strength
centrality has been found to be an efective measure in studies
such as [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">27</xref>
        ], where the authors applied various centralities to noun
phrase networks in extracting keywords from abstracts.
      </p>
      <p>While ranking nodes based on graph centrality can assist in
discovering important aspects, there could be several factors that
afect the quality of the selected aspects leading to false positives.
In the following sections, we introduce specific post-processing
techniques: incorporating domain-specific knowledge,
synonymbased clustering of aspects and aspect exclusivity to reduce false
positives and improve the accuracy of the framework.</p>
      <p>3.4.2 Domain-specific knowledge. Domain-specific knowledge
for a product can be obtained from structured metadata available
in product catalogs. Many products are associated with certain
aspect names and values provided by the manufacturer, referred
to as MPAs, as part of their technical specifications. For example,
Microsoft Xbox One S may be associated with MPAs such as Device
Input Support, Console color, Internet Connectivity, Hard Drive
Capacity. We aggregate MPAs within a category of products to create
a domain-specific MPA dictionary. Extracted aspects are re-ranked
based on a match with an entry in the MPA dictionary or one of its
synonyms. Matching aspects are promoted ahead of the ones that
have no matches in the centrality-based ranking.</p>
      <p>
        3.4.3 Synonym-based Clustering. We use 300-dimensional word
embeddings for one million vocabulary entries trained on the
Common Crawl corpus using the GloVe algorithm [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ] to compute word
similarities. Synonym clusters of similar aspects such as picture and
image are formed by grouping pairs which have a cosine similarity
of word vectors greater than a threshold η ∈ [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">0, 1</xref>
        ]. An
agglomerative hierarchical clustering approach is adopted to form the clusters,
while η is empirically learnt from a small dataset of synonyms for
this task. A representative word is selected for each cluster, based
on the ranking measure for the node representing it in the aspect
graph.
      </p>
      <p>3.4.4 Aspect Exclusivity. A set of aspects that are not exclusive
to a few categories, but are widely used in reviews across all
categories of products is generated. Non-exclusive aspects generally
may not ofer value in describing attributes very specific to a
product and are demoted. For example, although the aspect features
occurs very frequently in reviews of a variety of products, it is a
very broad in scope and ofers little knowledge about a product, in
contrast to an aspect like suction power, which is very specific to
vacuum cleaners. We generate category-wise review corpora, by
aggregating all reviews of products belonging to the same category.
We generate a set of documents D : {d1, d2, ..dn }, corresponding to
categories C : {c1, c2, ..cn }, where the document di contains reviews
of all products in ci . An aspect α is considered to be non-exclusive
if |di : s ∈ di | &gt; m, i.e. it occurs in more than m categories.
4
4.1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>EVALUATION</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Evaluation Dataset</title>
      <p>
        Evaluation of the proposed methods was performed on a
humanjudged evaluation dataset generated by sampling product reviews
from a diverse set of e-commerce product categories including those
in areas such as media, electronics, books, health &amp; beauty, home
&amp; garden etc. While, there exist several aspect evaluation datasets
published previously including [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">29</xref>
        ], [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>
        ], we opted to compile
a fresh dataset for two main reasons. Firstly, many of the existing
datasets are focused on very specific categories such as electronics
or restaurants. Modern e-commerce websites have a much broader
variety of product categories, and the evaluation dataset must be
representative of them. Next, many of the existing datasets have
been built to evaluate the efectiveness of aspect extraction from
individual reviews. However, the focus of this work is in identifying
important aspects collectively discussed by all the reviewers of a
product.
      </p>
      <p>The evaluation dataset consisted of approximately 60,000 reviews
for 427 products in 126 categories, and their respective human
evaluated aspects. The products were sampled in a fashion that is
representative of the e-commerce categories that receive product
reviews. The selected products had an average of 140 reviews per
product. Manually reading all the reviews in the evaluation dataset
to identify every aspect occurring in the reviews can be a very
demanding task for human judges. Further, such a process is prone
to errors owing to fatigue associated with reading a large number
Blender
smoothies
speed
recipes
performance</p>
      <p>waste
warranty</p>
      <p>Video Game
game play
graphics
challeneges
story
gamer
animations</p>
      <p>Vacuum Cleaner</p>
      <p>suction
attachments
maneuverability
dyson
edges
lfoor</p>
      <p>Face Powder
foundation
brush
acne
touch
ingredients
summer</p>
      <p>Pet Medicine
infestation
retriever</p>
      <p>cats
lfea treatments
application
hair</p>
      <p>Cofee Maker
brewer
heating
cup size
lfavour
steel
k cup</p>
      <p>
        Movie
efects
characters
graphics
expressions
tradition
animation
of reviews, inconsistency in individual interpretation in identifying
aspects [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. To simplify the evaluation task for the human judges,
we generated a list of potential aspects for each product, determined
based on their part of speech tag and frequency thresholds, and
requested the evaluators to indicate if they thought the candidate
was relevant. The evaluation dataset had an average of 31 aspect
candidates provided per product and the evaluators were asked to
provide a binary decision on each candidate. The aspect candidates
for each product received 3 votes and a majority was considered as
the final evaluation.
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>4.2 Results</title>
      <p>Experiments were performed on the evaluation dataset to examine:
1) The performance of the centrality measures in comparison to a
tf-idf baseline. 2) The contribution of domain-specific knowledge to
the current task, and 3) Diferences in performance of the methods
in contrasting product categories.</p>
      <p>The results produced after evaluating in-strength centrality and
page-rank methods using the evaluation dataset are shown in
Tables 2 and 3. We use tf-idf as a baseline to compare the performance
of the centrality-based methods. To compute tf-idf, all the reviews
for a given product are considered as a document, while the
corpus consists of documents representing each product. In order to
maintain consistency, the same pre-processing and post-processing
methods used in aspect graph construction are applied to
computing tf-idf. Table 2 shows the results for all 427 products in the
evaluation set with and without domain knowledge incorporated.
Table 3 compares the performance of the models on electronics and
media categories separately. Electronics categories consist of
product related to smartphones, computers, printers etc., while media
categories comprise of books, DVDs etc. There were 76 products
belonging to media related products in the evaluation dataset, while
there were 103 electronics products.</p>
      <p>While, the graph centrality-based measured perform better than
the baseline tf-idf, we have observed that although it is a simpler
measure, in-strength centrality generally performs very similar to
page-rank. Owing to the limited depth of the aspect graphs and
smaller number of candidate aspects per graph, there are limitations
to leveraging the properties of page-rank, and simpler measures
can be efective in this case. Further, we also observed that these
methods perform better in more structured and well-defined
categories such as electronics than categories such as media, as can be
seen from Table 3.</p>
      <p>We also investigated the influence of domain knowledge (using
MPAs) on aspect ranking. First, MPAs associated with products
in the evaluation dataset were compared to the aspects identified
by the evaluators. Only 23.8% of MPAs match with the aspects
identified by evaluators, emphasizing the mismatch between
reviewer and manufacturer vocabulary. Further, Table 2 compares the
precision@k obtained for in-strength and pagerank measures with
and without using MPAs. We can see that MPAs have a positive
influence on performance and aspect discovery can benefit from
utilizing them.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>5 SUMMARY</title>
      <p>Product reviews are repositories of valuable buyer-provided product
insights that other prospective buyers on e-commerce websites
trust. Product insights discovered from reviews can power novel
and engaging buyer-centric browsing and shopping experiences
on e-commerce websites, in contrast to the existing experiences
tailored to product catalogs. In this paper, we present methods
to extract such insights from product reviews and quantify their
importance based on collective opinions expressed by reviewers.</p>
      <p>To capture top product insights from reviews, we present a
framework to identify product aspects based on sentence dependency
structure, and rank them by applying graph centralities. We also
incorporate domain knowledge into out framework and study the
contribution of domain knowledge to this task. The method we
proposed is unsupervised and can scale across a diverse set of
categories. We evaluate the proposed methods on an evaluation
dataset that is representative of the product categories on major
e-commerce platforms. The results show that the proposed
framework can be applicable across a diverse set of product categories
and that domain knowledge can positively contribute to this task.</p>
      <p>Including MPAs
In-Strength PageRank
.761 .758
.731 .726
.702 .692
.676 .681
.647 .655
.621 .603
.634 .628</p>
      <p>Excluding MPAs
In-Strength PageRank
.712 .728
.681 .702
.652 .668
.639 .644
.613 .619
.523 .511
.564 .560</p>
      <p>Electronics</p>
      <p>PageRank
.783
.758
.727
.711
.684
.635
.658</p>
      <p>Tf-Idf
.713
.688
.669
.646
.621
.572
.595</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Slobodan</given-names>
            <surname>Beliga</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Ana Meštrović, and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sanda</surname>
          </string-name>
          Martinčić-Ipšić.
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>An overview of graph-based keyword extraction methods and approaches</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal of information and organizational sciences 39</source>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ),
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>20</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stephen</surname>
            <given-names>P</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Borgatti and Martin G Everett</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality</article-title>
          .
          <source>Social networks 28</source>
          ,
          <issue>4</issue>
          (
          <year>2006</year>
          ),
          <fpage>466</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>484</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Samuel</given-names>
            <surname>Brody</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Noemie</given-names>
            <surname>Elhadad</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2010</year>
          .
          <article-title>An unsupervised aspect-sentiment model for online reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Human Language Technologies</source>
          :
          <article-title>The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          .
          <source>Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>804</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>812</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Zhiyuan</given-names>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Bing</given-names>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Topic modeling using topics from many domains, lifelong learning and big data</article-title>
          .
          <source>In International Conference on Machine Learning</source>
          .
          <fpage>703</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>711</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jinho</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Choi</surname>
            , Joel R Tetreault, and
            <given-names>Amanda</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stent</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          . It Depends:
          <article-title>Dependency Parser Comparison Using A Web-based Evaluation Tool.</article-title>
          .
          <source>In ACL (1)</source>
          .
          <fpage>387</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>396</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Marie-Catherine De Marnefe and Christopher D Manning</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <article-title>Stanford typed dependencies manual</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical Report. Technical report</source>
          , Stanford University.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Pinar</given-names>
            <surname>Donmez</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Jaime G Carbonell, and Jef Schneider.
          <year>2009</year>
          .
          <article-title>Eficiently learning the accuracy of labeling sources for selective sampling</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>259</volume>
          -
          <fpage>268</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Matthew</given-names>
            <surname>Honnibal</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Mark</given-names>
            <surname>Johnson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>An Improved Non-monotonic Transition System for Dependency Parsing</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on In-Strength .774 .749 .718 .691 .673 .649 .661 Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          , Lisbon, Portugal,
          <fpage>1373</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1378</lpage>
          . https://aclweb.org/anthology/D/D15/ D15-1162
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Minqing</given-names>
            <surname>Hu</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Bing</given-names>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>Mining opinion features in customer reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In AAAI</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>4</volume>
          .
          <fpage>755</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>760</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Saratchandra</surname>
            <given-names>Indrakanti</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Gyanit</given-names>
            <surname>Singh</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>and Justin</given-names>
            <surname>House</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2018</year>
          .
          <article-title>Blurb Mining: Discovering Interesting Excerpts from E-commerce Product Reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Companion of the The Web Conference 2018 on The Web Conference 2018. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee</source>
          ,
          <fpage>1669</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1675</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Niklas</given-names>
            <surname>Jakob</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Iryna</given-names>
            <surname>Gurevych</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2010</year>
          .
          <article-title>Extracting opinion targets in a single-and cross-domain setting with conditional random fields</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2010 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>1035</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1045</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Qian</surname>
            <given-names>Liu</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Zhiqiang Gao, Bing Liu,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>and Yuanlin</given-names>
            <surname>Zhang</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>Automated Rule Selection for Aspect Extraction in Opinion Mining.</article-title>
          .
          <source>In IJCAI. 1291-1297.</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Rada</given-names>
            <surname>Mihalcea</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Paul</given-names>
            <surname>Tarau</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>TextRank: Bringing order into texts. Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Samaneh</given-names>
            <surname>Moghaddam</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Martin</given-names>
            <surname>Ester</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2011</year>
          .
          <article-title>ILDA: interdependent LDA model for learning latent aspects and their ratings from online product reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in Information Retrieval. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>665</volume>
          -
          <fpage>674</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Arjun</given-names>
            <surname>Mukherjee</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Bing</given-names>
            <surname>Liu</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2012</year>
          .
          <article-title>Aspect extraction through semi-supervised modeling</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>339</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>348</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          [16]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Hiroshi</given-names>
            <surname>Nakagawa</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Tatsunori</given-names>
            <surname>Mori</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2002</year>
          .
          <article-title>A simple but powerful automatic term extraction method</article-title>
          .
          <source>In COLING-02 on COMPUTERM</source>
          <year>2002</year>
          : second international workshop on computational terminology-Volume
          <volume>14</volume>
          . Association for Computational Linguistics,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>7</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          [17]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lawrence</surname>
            <given-names>Page</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Sergey Brin, Rajeev Motwani, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Terry</given-names>
            <surname>Winograd</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>1999</year>
          .
          <article-title>The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical Report</source>
          . Stanford InfoLab.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          [18]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jefrey</surname>
            <given-names>Pennington</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Richard Socher, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Christopher D</given-names>
            <surname>Manning</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation.</article-title>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>In</surname>
            <given-names>EMNLP</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Vol.
          <volume>14</volume>
          .
          <fpage>1532</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1543</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          [19]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ana-Maria</surname>
            <given-names>Popescu</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Bao Nguyen, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Oren</given-names>
            <surname>Etzioni</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>OPINE: Extracting product features and opinions from reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of HLT/EMNLP on interactive demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>32</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>33</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          [20]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Soujanya</surname>
            <given-names>Poria</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Erik Cambria, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Alexander</given-names>
            <surname>Gelbukh</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2016</year>
          .
          <article-title>Aspect extraction for opinion mining with a deep convolutional neural network</article-title>
          .
          <source>Knowledge-Based Systems</source>
          <volume>108</volume>
          (
          <year>2016</year>
          ),
          <fpage>42</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>49</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref21">
        <mixed-citation>
          [21]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Soujanya</surname>
            <given-names>Poria</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Erik Cambria,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lun-Wei</surname>
            <given-names>Ku</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Chen Gui, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Alexander</given-names>
            <surname>Gelbukh</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>A rule-based approach to aspect extraction from product reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the second workshop on natural language processing for social media (SocialNLP)</source>
          .
          <fpage>28</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>37</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref22">
        <mixed-citation>
          [22]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Guang</surname>
            <given-names>Qiu</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Bing Liu, Jiajun Bu, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Chun</given-names>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2011</year>
          .
          <article-title>Opinion word expansion and target extraction through double propagation</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computational linguistics 37</source>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (
          <year>2011</year>
          ),
          <fpage>9</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>27</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref23">
        <mixed-citation>
          [23]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Christopher</surname>
            <given-names>Scafidi</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Kevin Bierhof,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Eric</given-names>
            <surname>Chang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Mikhael Felker, Herman Ng, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Chun</given-names>
            <surname>Jin</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2007</year>
          .
          <article-title>Red Opal: product-feature scoring from reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>182</volume>
          -
          <fpage>191</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref24">
        <mixed-citation>
          [24]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Swapna</surname>
            <given-names>Somasundaran</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Galileo Namata, Lise Getoor, and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Janyce</given-names>
            <surname>Wiebe</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2009</year>
          .
          <article-title>Opinion graphs for polarity and discourse classification</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 2009 Workshop on Graph-based Methods for Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>66</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>74</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref25">
        <mixed-citation>
          [25]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Ivan</given-names>
            <surname>Titov and Ryan McDonald</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2008</year>
          .
          <article-title>Modeling online reviews with multi-grain topic models</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM</source>
          ,
          <volume>111</volume>
          -
          <fpage>120</fpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref26">
        <mixed-citation>
          [26]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tao</surname>
            <given-names>Wang</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Yi Cai, Ho-fung
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leung</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Raymond YK Lau</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Qing</given-names>
            <surname>Li</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>and Huaqing</given-names>
            <surname>Min</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Product aspect extraction supervised with online domain knowledge</article-title>
          .
          <source>Knowledge-Based Systems</source>
          <volume>71</volume>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ),
          <fpage>86</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>100</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref27">
        <mixed-citation>
          [27]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Zhuli</given-names>
            <surname>Xie</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Centrality measures in text mining: prediction of noun phrases that appear in abstracts</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the ACL student research workshop. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>103</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>108</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref28">
        <mixed-citation>
          [28]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Qian</given-names>
            <surname>Xu</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S Shyam</given-names>
            <surname>Sundar</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Lights, camera, music, interaction! Interactive persuasion in e-commerce</article-title>
          .
          <source>Communication Research</source>
          <volume>41</volume>
          ,
          <issue>2</issue>
          (
          <year>2014</year>
          ),
          <fpage>282</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>308</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref29">
        <mixed-citation>
          [29]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhijun</surname>
            <given-names>Yan</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Meiming Xing, Dongsong Zhang, and Baizhang Ma.
          <year>2015</year>
          .
          <article-title>EXPRS: An extended pagerank method for product feature extraction from online consumer reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>Information &amp; Management</source>
          <volume>52</volume>
          ,
          <issue>7</issue>
          (
          <year>2015</year>
          ),
          <fpage>850</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>858</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref30">
        <mixed-citation>
          [30]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jianxing</surname>
            <given-names>Yu</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zheng-Jun</surname>
            <given-names>Zha</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Meng</given-names>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tat-Seng Chua</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2011</year>
          .
          <article-title>Aspect ranking: identifying important product aspects from online consumer reviews</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics</source>
          ,
          <fpage>1496</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1505</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>