The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text
Abstract
In order to recommend products to users we must ultimately predict how a user will respond to a new product. To do so we must uncover the implicit tastes of each user as well as the properties of each product. For example, in order to predict whether a user will enjoy Harry Potter, it helps to identify that the book is about wizards, as well as the user's level of interest in wizardry. User feedback is required to discover these latent product and user dimensions. Such feedback often comes in the form of a numeric rating accompanied by review text. However, traditional methods often discard review text, which makes user and product latent dimensions difficult to interpret, since they ignore the very text that justifies a user's rating. In this paper, we aim to combine latent rating dimensions (such as those of latent-factor recommender systems) with latent review topics (such as those learned by topic models like LDA). Our approach has several advantages. Firstly, we obtain highly interpretable textual labels for latent rating dimensions, which helps us to `justify' ratings with text. Secondly, our approach more accurately predicts product ratings by harnessing the information present in review text; this is especially true for new products and users, who may have too few ratings to model their latent factors, yet may still provide substantial information from the text of even a single review. Thirdly, our discovered topics can be used to facilitate other tasks such as automated genre discovery, and to identify useful and representative reviews.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Amazon.com recommendations: item-to-item collaborative filtering
Linden, G., Smith, B., & York, J. (2003) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2003.1167344 · Cited by 5,403
Jindal, N., & Liu, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining - WSDM '08 · doi:10.1145/1341531.1341560 · Cited by 1,542
Cited by
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Queue · doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340 · Cited by 5,427
The Mythos of Model Interpretability
Lipton, Z. C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.03490 · Cited by 5,422
Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classification
Zhang, X., Zhao, J., & LeCun, Y. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1509.01626 · Cited by 3,205
Semi-supervised Sequence Learning
Dai, A. M., & Le, Q. V. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.01432 · Cited by 994
Mittelstadt, B., Russell, C., & Wachter, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287574 · Cited by 794
Metadata
- Authors
- McAuley, J., & Leskovec, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2013-10-12
- Pages
- 165-172
- OpenAlex
- W2061873838
- Cited by
- 1,564
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 70.22
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2507157.2507163
- The paper
- McAuley, J., & Leskovec, J. (2013). Hidden factors and hidden topics: understanding rating dimensions with review text. Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2507157.2507163
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.