A Hierarchical Aspect-Sentiment Model for Online Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To help users quickly understand the major opinions from massive online reviews, it is important to automatically reveal the latent structure of the aspects, sentiment polarities, and the association between them. However, there is little work available to do this effectively. In this paper, we propose a hierarchical aspect sentiment model (HASM) to discover a hierarchical structure of aspect-based sentiments from unlabeled online reviews. In HASM, the whole structure is a tree. Each node itself is a two-level tree, whose root represents an aspect and the children represent the sentiment polarities associated with it. Each aspect or sentiment polarity is modeled as a distribution of words. To automatically extract both the structure and parameters of the tree, we use a Bayesian nonparametric model, recursive Chinese Restaurant Process (rCRP), as the prior and jointly infer the aspect-sentiment tree from the review texts. Experiments on two real datasets show that our model is comparable to two other hierarchical topic models in terms of quantitative measures of topic trees. It is also shown that our model achieves better sentence-level classification accuracy than previously proposed aspect-sentiment joint models.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".