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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
(2014) · Cited by 33,419
(2003) · Journal of Machine Learning Research · doi:10.5555/944919.944937 · Cited by 32,337
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.0473 · Cited by 16,213
Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification
Kim, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1181 · Cited by 14,831
(2010) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 13,995
(2016) · Cited by 11,679
Cited by
Nauta, M., Trienes, J., Pathak, S., Nguyen, E., Peters, M., Schmitt, Y., Schlötterer, J., van Keulen, M., & Seifert, C. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3583558 · Cited by 590
Recommender Systems in the Era of Large Language Models (LLMs)
Zhao, Z., Fan, W., Li, J., Liu, Y., Mei, X., Wang, Y., Wen, Z., Wang, F., Zhao, X., Tang, J., et al. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3392335 · Cited by 481
Self-citationChen, X., Chen, H., Xu, H., Zhang, Y., Cao, Y., Qin, Z., & Zha, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3331184.3331254 · Cited by 284
Personalized Prompt Learning for Explainable Recommendation
Li, L., Zhang, Y., & Chen, L. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3580488 · Cited by 172
A Reinforcement Learning Framework for Explainable Recommendation
Wang, X., Chen, Y., Yang, J., Wu, L., Wu, Z., & Xie, X. (2018) · 2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) · doi:10.1109/icdm.2018.00074 · Cited by 163
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.