The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes
Abstract
Mobile app developers constantly monitor feedback in user reviews with the goal of improving their mobile apps and better meeting user expectations. Thus, automated approaches have been proposed in literature with the aim of reducing the effort required for analyzing feedback contained in user reviews via automatic classification/prioritization according to specific topics. In this paper, we introduce SURF (Summarizer of User Reviews Feedback), a novel approach to condense the enormous amount of information that developers of popular apps have to manage due to user feedback received on a daily basis. SURF relies on a conceptual model for capturing user needs useful for developers performing maintenance and evolution tasks. Then it uses sophisticated summarisation techniques for summarizing thousands of reviews and generating an interactive, structured and condensed agenda of recommended software changes. We performed an end-to-end evaluation of SURF on user reviews of 17 mobile apps (5 of them developed by Sony Mobile), involving 23 developers and researchers in total. Results demonstrate high accuracy of SURF in summarizing reviews and the usefulness of the recommended changes. In evaluating our approach we found that SURF helps developers in better understanding user needs, substantially reducing the time required by developers compared to manually analyzing user (change) requests and planning future software changes.
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
WordNet: a lexical database for English
Miller, G. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219717.219748 · Cited by 14,015 · cited 3×
“Once the dictionaries were enriched with WordNet synonyms, one of the authors and an external validator (a software engineer with more than 6 years of industrial experience) separately assigned each sentence in T test (described in Section 2.1) to one or more of the 12 defined concepts.”
MethodInfluentialBaeza-Yates, R. A., & Ribeiro-Neto, B. A. (1999) · Cited by 11,505
An algorithm for suffix stripping
Porter, M. F. (1980) · Program · doi:10.1108/eb046814 · Cited by 8,096 · cited 2×
“As first step we stemmed each sentence using the Snowball Stemmer Algorithm [34] to reduce words to their root form.”
MethodThumbs up?: sentiment classification using machine learning techniques
Pang, B., Lee, L., & Vaithyanathan, S. (2002) · Proceedings of the ACL-02 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing - EMNLP '02 · doi:10.3115/1118693.1118704 · Cited by 7,024
Verbs semantics and lexical selection
Wu, Z., & Palmer, M. (1994) · Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - · doi:10.3115/981732.981751 · Cited by 3,136
How Do Users Like This Feature? A Fine Grained Sentiment Analysis of App Reviews
Guzman, E., & Maalej, W. (2014) · 2014 IEEE 22nd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re.2014.6912257 · Cited by 590
User feedback in the appstore: An empirical study
Pagano, D., & Maalej, W. (2013) · 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re.2013.6636712 · Cited by 540
AR-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace
Chen, N., Lin, J., Hoi, S. C. H., Xiao, X., & Zhang, B. (2014) · Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2568225.2568263 · Cited by 517
Towards automatically generating summary comments for Java methods
Sridhara, G., Hill, E., Muppaneni, D., Pollock, L., & Vijay-Shanker, K. (2010) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering · doi:10.1145/1858996.1859006 · Cited by 514
How can i improve my app? Classifying user reviews for software maintenance and evolution
Panichella, S., Di Sorbo, A., Guzman, E., Visaggio, C. A., Canfora, G., & Gall, H. C. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME) · doi:10.1109/icsm.2015.7332474 · Cited by 455
Self-citation
Cited by
Software Documentation Issues Unveiled
Aghajani, E., Nagy, C., Vega-Marquez, O. L., Linares-Vasquez, M., Moreno, L., Bavota, G., & Lanza, M. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00122 · Cited by 195
Nicholas, J., Fogarty, A. S., Boydell, K., & Christensen, H. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7273 · Cited by 158
Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Bi, T., Xia, X., Lo, D., Grundy, J., Zimmermann, T., & Ford, D. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3503508 · Cited by 109
Automated reporting of GUI design violations for mobile apps
Moran, K., Li, B., Bernal-Cárdenas, C., Jelf, D., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3180155.3180246 · Cited by 101
A Survey of Performance Optimization for Mobile Applications
Hort, M., Kechagia, M., Sarro, F., & Harman, M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2021.3071193 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Di Sorbo, A., Panichella, S., Alexandru, C. V., Shimagaki, J., Visaggio, C. A., Canfora, G., & Gall, H. C.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-11
- Pages
- 499-510
- OpenAlex
- W2547513165
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 29.92
- 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: What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2950290.2950299
- The paper
- Di Sorbo, A., Panichella, S., Alexandru, C. V., Shimagaki, J., Visaggio, C. A., Canfora, G., & Gall, H. C. (2016). What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes. Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/2950290.2950299
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.
