On the design of LDA models for aspect-based opinion mining
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspect-based opinion mining, which aims to extract aspects and their corresponding ratings from customers reviews, provides very useful information for customers to make purchase decisions. In the past few years several probabilistic graphical models have been proposed to address this problem, most of them based on Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). While these models have a lot in common, there are some characteristics that distinguish them from each other. These fundamental differences correspond to major decisions that have been made in the design of the LDA models. While research papers typically claim that a new model outperforms the existing ones, there is normally no "one-size-fits-all" model. In this paper, we present a set of design guidelines for aspect-based opinion mining by discussing a series of increasingly sophisticated LDA models. We argue that these models represent the essence of the major published methods and allow us to distinguish the impact of various design decisions. We conduct extensive experiments on a very large real life dataset from Epinions.com (500K reviews) and compare the performance of different models in terms of the likelihood of the held-out test set and in terms of the accuracy of aspect identification and rating prediction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it