Statistical Learning of Domain-Specific Quality-of-Service Features from User Reviews
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
With the fast increase of online services of all kinds, users start to care more about the Quality of Service (QoS) that a service provider can offer besides the functionalities of the services. As a result, QoS-based service selection and recommendation have received significant attention since the mid-2000s. However, existing approaches primarily consider a small number of standard QoS parameters, most of which relate to the response time, fee, availability of services, and so on. As online services start to diversify significantly over different domains, these small set of QoS parameters will not be able to capture the different quality aspects that users truly care about over different domains. Most existing approaches for QoS data collection depend on the information from service providers, which are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the providers. Some service monitoring mechanisms collect QoS data through actual service invocations but may be affected by actual hardware/software configurations. In either case, domain-specific QoS data that capture what users truly care about have not been successfully collected or analyzed by existing works in service computing. To address this demanding issue, we develop a statistical learning approach to extract domain-specific QoS features from user-provided service reviews. In particular, we aim to classify user reviews based on their sentiment orientations into either a positive or negative category. Meanwhile, statistical feature selection is performed to identify statistically nontrivial terms from review text, which can serve as candidate QoS features. We also develop a topic models-based approach that automatically groups relevant terms and returns the term groups to users, where each term group corresponds to one high-level quality aspect of services. We have conducted extensive experiments on three real-world datasets to demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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