Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 622

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neural Attentional Rating Regression with Review-level Explanations

Open access
Chen, Chong, Zhang, Min, Liu, Yiqun, Ma, Shaoping·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18

Abstract

Reviews information is dominant for users to make online purchasing decisions in e-commerces. However, the usefulness of reviews is varied. We argue that less-useful reviews hurt model's performance, and are also less meaningful for user's reference. While some existing models utilize reviews for improving the performance of recommender systems, few of them consider the usefulness of reviews for recommendation quality. In this paper, we introduce a novel attention mechanism to explore the usefulness of reviews, and propose a Neural Attentional Regression model with Review-level Explanations (NARRE) for recommendation. Specifically, NARRE can not only predict precise ratings, but also learn the usefulness of each review simultaneously. Therefore, the highly-useful reviews are obtained which provide review-level explanations to help users make better and faster decisions. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets of Amazon and Yelp on different domains show that the proposed NARRE model consistently outperforms the state-of-the-art recommendation approaches, including PMF, NMF, SVD++, HFT, and DeepCoNN in terms of rating prediction, by the proposed attention model that takes review usefulness into consideration. Furthermore, the selected reviews are shown to be effective when taking existing review-usefulness ratings in the system as ground truth. Besides, crowd-sourcing based evaluations reveal that in most cases, NARRE achieves equal or even better performances than system's usefulness rating method in selecting reviews. And it is flexible to offer great help on the dominant cases in real e-commerce scenarios when the ratings on review-usefulness are not available in the system.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3178876.3186070

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 622

Metadata

Authors
Chen, C., Zhang, M., Liu, Y., & Ma, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
2018
Pages
1583-1592
OpenAlex
W2788376297
Cited by
622
References
42
FWCI
54.61
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Neural Attentional Rating Regression with Review-level Explanations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3178876.3186070
The paper
Chen, C., Zhang, M., Liu, Y., & Ma, S. (2018). Neural Attentional Rating Regression with Review-level Explanations. Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186070

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.