TEXT MINING ON USER PHONE REVIEWS TO STUDY USER OPINIONS

Comments · 313 Views

Amazon is one of the most popular online marketplaces used by both individuals as well as businesses, and the site is available in many different countries and languages. Not only is Amazon the most valuable internet retailer in the world, but it is also the most valuable retailer period,

Background

Amazon receives a huge amount of reviews on various brands and products it sells, and it needs sophisticated machine learning techniques to understand customer feedback which is usually in the form of unstructured text data. For understanding customer concerns and being able to do it accurately with the least manual intervention, its necessary to employ machines to understand data and make sense of it. We want to employ techniques like Topic Modeling, Sentiment analysis, and various machine learning algorithms for user rating predictions to make sense of these large unstructured datasets.

The goal of the Thesis

In this project, we will be exploring over 68k customer reviews of over 720 mobile phones posted on Amazon.

We aim to take a two-pronged approach in this project. One, to use the techniques of topic modeling to point out the top positive and negative aspects of the purchase that the users associate with a brand/product based on their reviews. In this respect, we will focus on the application of LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation) and NMF (Non-Matrix Factorization) towards achieving this goal and then comparing the outputs obtained by these two techniques

The second prong of the project will be pointed at creating a predictive model to predict user ratings by exploring logistic regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and Naïve Bayes and arrive at the best model to do the same.

 

Exploratory Data Analysis

Data Gathering

In this project we are working with 2 files:

  • CSV: This file has around 68K reviews with 8 feature variables for all brands of phones. There are 2 numerical variables rating and helpful votes.
  • CSV: Pre-scraped data for 720 phone items from amazon with 10 feature variables. There are 4 numerical variables: rating, totalReviews, price, and original price.

We merged both these files with the common column ‘asin’.

Data Cleaning

It is important that we have the data in a clean and standard format before proceeding to further analysis. Data cleaning steps followed in the project:

  • The first step is to do the basic cleaning processes like converting text into lowercase, removing punctuations. This was done using regular expressions (re) in python.
  • Next, we checked for null values in the dataset. For reviews.csv we saw a significant amount of NA’s for column helpfulVotes which was then removed.
  • We also removed stop words; these are usually the most used words in English. Removing such words will help us focus on other important words in the text.
  • There is a need to tokenize data, which essentially means to split the text into smaller pieces.
  • We also performed stemming and lemmatization, which are text normalization techniques. We used the NLTK package in Python to perform the same. Stemming is the process of reducing the words to their root forms, like mapping a group of words to the same step. Although lemmatization ensures that the root word is a valid word in the English language unlike stemming.

 

Visualization

Visualization is a very strong medium to understand the data. We generated multiple plots to understand the nature of overall and brand wise user ratings before venturing into Sentiment analysis and topic modeling. The below figure gives a brand-wise outlook on user ratings. The highest deviation in ratings due to missing reviews is for one-plus phones at 0.63. Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, and Apple have less than 0.2 rating deviation.

 

Figure 1: Average user ratings per Brand

 

We can see from the below figure that out of all the 68K reviews, more than 70% of them have been rated as either 4 or 5. Hence we see a bi-modal distribution of ratings for all the brands in the figure.

Figure 2: Overall user ratings

Sentiment Analysis

Sentiment Analysis Methods

Sentiment Analysis is contextual mining of text which identifies and extracts subjective information in source material and helps a business understand the social sentiment of a brand. Here we are dealing with user reviews of multiple brands and hence this technique is very essential to understand the customer sentiment.

Input to a Sentiment analysis technique is a corpus, which is basically a collection of words where order matters.

Methods used for Sentiment analysis:

  • TextBlob: TextBlob is a part of NLTK library in python. The output of sentiment analysis is a sentiment score ranging from -1 to 1 (which is polarity) indicating how positive or negative they are and a subjectivity score of 0 to 1 where 0 indicates a fact and 1 indicates an opinion. TextBlob finds all the words and phrases that it can assign a polarity and sensitivity to and averages them all together. Finally, each phone is assigned one polarity and one subjectivity score.
  • Vader: Vader (Valence Aware Dictionary and Sentiment Reasoner) is a part of the vaderSentiment library in Python for applying sentiment analysis techniques. The output of the Vader method is a compound score metric which is calculated by summing the valence scores of each word in the lexicon, adjusted according to the rules, and normalized to be between -1 (most extreme negative) and 1 (most extreme positive).

Interpreting Results

For sentiment analysis, we have tried to use standardized thresholds to classify sentences as either positive or negative. This is required since we saw that the data has imbalanced classes of rating with 4,5 taking up about 67% of the data. Hence, we need a higher threshold to classify 4,5 ratings as positive. After trying multiple threshold values, we see that for 4,5 0.5 cut works the best and for the rest 0 cut off. Below are the results obtained when keeping the threshold at 0 and 0.5 and both Vader and TextBlob sentiment analysis techniques.

Text

Cutoff

Sentiment

Rating

 

 

 

1

2

3

4

5

body

0.5 for 4,5
0 else

0

7285

1866

1517

1001

11380

1

5458

2049

3235

7823

26372

0.5

0

11221

3020

3183

3739

11380

1

1522

895

1569

5085

26372

0

0

9500

2369

2083

1768

5557

1

3243

1546

2669

7056

32195

title

0

0

11340

3150

3220

3771

14643

1

1403

765

1532

5053

23109

0.5

0

12388

3691

4283

6287

21439

1

355

224

469

2537

16313

Table 1: Rating Summary

Topic Modeling

Topic Modeling Methods

Topic modeling is a technique used to extract meaningful information from vast amounts of data. In this project, we are trying to label different topics among all the cell phone reviews in order to provide business recommendations to sellers.

Input to the topic modeling technique is a document-term Matrix: It is a matrices where the rows are different documents and columns are different terms and values in the matrix are the word counts. Each topic will consist of a bag of words not necessarily ordered.

We are going to implement topic modeling by using a python library called Gensim. This package utilizes a topic modeling technique called Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). This technique aims to find the hidden probability distributions where every document is a probability distribution of topics and every topic is a distribution of words. We give the document-term matrix, a number of topics, and a number of iterations as input to the Gensim LDA process. Gensim will go through the process of finding the best word distribution for each topic and the best topic distribution for each document.

We have also performed Nonnegative-Matrix Factorization, input to this algorithm is the Document-Term matrix and number of topics. The output we receive from the algorithm is two non-negative matrices of the original words by K-topics and those k topics by them original documents. Below are the results we received for Xiaomi for positive feedbacks using Nonnegative-Matrix Factorization.

Figure 3: Positive Topic results from non-negative matrix factorization for Xiaomi

 

The output of topic modeling will be top words in each topic highlighting themes across various user reviews. From the output, we can interpret results and see if the bag of words in each topic makes sense.

Figure 4: Formatted LDA output from Gensim package

 

Interpreting Results

Coherence Scores

Topic Coherence scores measure the score of a single topic by measuring the degree of semantic similarity between high scoring words in the topic. Figure 4 provides the optimum number of topics to be extracted using LDA. We pick the number of topics at the highest coherence scores.

The below plot is the coherence score chart for positive review sentiment for Xiaomi. Although we see that the peak of the chart is after 30, this is mostly due to the repeating words in the new topics. Hence, we would consider the first peek at ~8 to be out the optimum number of Topics to be modeled.

 

Figure 5: Coherence Scores (Xiaomi positive)

Inferences

Below are the results of Topic modeling for Brands Samsung, Apple, and Xiaomi for both positive and negative sentiment. Based on the topics generated from the LDA technique we will analyze the bag of words in both positive and negative topics to identify the good or bad qualities about the product.

Interpretation of results obtained for Xiaomi:

Positive:

  • From the iterations carried out for different numbers of topics, it was observed that when the number of topics was set to 8, the algorithm was able to uncover some interesting aspects that were not obvious otherwise.
  • The consumers were in general, appreciative of the value for money these phones offered to the customer which is one of the main reasons Xiaomi has seen steady growth over the years. Customers were happy about the camera provided in most Xiaomi products. People were very pleased with the picture reproduction quality offered by these phones at the competitive prices at which they were sold in the market. The touch system on these smartphones was also appreciated highly by the customers as being very responsive. One interesting aspect that was uncovered was the popularity of the Redmi note pro series among the customers. Most of the happy customers were supposedly proud owners of this device from Xiaomi.

Negative:

  • From the iterations carried out for different numbers of topics, it was observed that when the number of topics was set to 8, the algorithm was able to uncover some interesting aspects that were not obvious otherwise.
  • For Xiaomi, the consumers were in general unhappy about the call quality. There might have been several cases of call drops. Customers also raised issues concerning the fingerprint reader on the Xiaomi phones along with some general start-up issues some models were facing. Customers were also found to be raising concerns about the security apps installed on the Xiaomi phones. One interesting topic that was generated was concerning the sellers. The phones bought through these sellers might have had several issues. As Xiaomi does not rely on retail stores, unlike an apple or Samsung the company might find it beneficial to take measures when choosing the authorized sellers to market their phones to customers in different markets.

 

Figure 6: Xiaomi Top 8 positive topics, Word Cloud

Figure 7: Xiaomi Top 8 negative topics, Word Cloud

 

Interpretation of results obtained for Samsung:

Positive:

  • The users heavily talk about the screen and are happy with the looks. Samsung Galaxy flagship phones are super according to users and seen to have fast performance. Two topics are seen for budget phones talk where users look for a little more quality in speakers and battery but are still content with the overall price. The major liking of the Galaxy Note series seems to be the screen. Most of its phones seem to have a good photo quality.

Negative:

  • Starting from 2 topics we went on increasing topics to discover the various issues faced by the brand. 10 topics seemed to divide the issues in a distinguishable manner. The most dominant topic was concerning receiving calls followed by issues with screen likely due to drops. Product warranty and boxing issues were also prevalent. The Galaxy Note phone series was also a topic that talked about cases and storage being a problem. Battery charging seemed to be a high reason for returns and some had multimedia issues such as video quality being poor and bad speakers.

Figure 8: Samsung Top 10 positive topics, Word Cloud

 

Figure 9: Apple Top 10 negative topics, Word Cloud

Interpretation of results obtained for Apple:

Positive:

  • Many Apple phones are sold refurbished on Amazon, and their condition seems to be pretty good which shows up as happy users. The users seem to be fond of the cost, condition and shipping and it looks like Amazon is doing a good job to sell these phones. The screen is seen to appear often with the word scratch which makes sense as well and is a major topic in high rated reviews. The multimedia keywords appear with excellent keywords, so users seem to be happy with the overall product.

 

Negative:

  • From the iterations carried out for a different number of topics, it was observed that when the number of topics was set to 8, the algorithm was able to uncover some interesting aspects that were not obvious otherwise.
  • For Apple, the consumers were in general unhappy about the durability of the phones. The screen (damaged during the shipping process/other internal issues) speaker, battery, and charging cable were some of the product aspects the customers were in general disappointed about, which were captured in most of the topics. Being a premium phone company, the price of the phones was also listed as a major issue. Apart from these, another one interesting aspect e customers complained about was related to over-heating

 

Figure 10: Apple Top 8 positive topics, Word Cloud

 

Figure 11: Apple Top 8 negative topics, Word Cloud

User Rating Prediction

User Rating Prediction Methods

The rise in E-commerce has brought a significant rise in the importance of customer reviews. There are hundreds of review sites online and massive amounts of reviews for every product. Customers have changed their way of shopping and according to a recent survey, 70 percent of customers say that they use rating filters to filter out low rated items in their searches.

The ability to successfully decide whether a review will be helpful to other customers and thus give the product more exposure is vital to companies that support these reviews, companies like Google, Amazon, and Yelp!

Here we will try to predict ratings based on customer’s text reviews using different models and compare their performance by their accuracies. We have built Logistic regression, Naïve Bayes, SVM, Random Forest models. We would be following the below steps to predict ratings based on these models:

  • Balance the data: One of the complications we see is that the dataset is unbalanced with 67% of the overall ratings as 4,5. We will get biased results if we train the system on this unbalanced data. So, the first step before training a model is to balance a dataset by removing the overrepresented samples of ratings. Although for the current analysis we have not done the balancing, however, we will consider the bias while interpreting the results.
  • Convert text data into TF-IDF vectors: Term Frequency Inverse document frequency vectors normalize the count of each word in each text by the number of times the word occurs in all the texts. This is based on the theory that usually high-frequency words are less important.
  • Split the data into a training and test set: We will split the dataset into test and training data in order to check the out of sample accuracy of our trained models.
  • Classify the text data using different models: Classifiers Used: Logistic regression, Naïve Bayes, SVM, Random Forest
  • Evaluate the performance of each of the models using precision, recall, and accuracy.

Model Performance Evaluation

Model Performance evaluations of all the classifiers will be based on the below Metrics:

  • Precision: It is also called the positive predictive value and is the fraction of relevant instances among retrieved instances. A model that produces no false-positive has a precision of 1.
  • Recall: It is also called sensitivity and is the fraction of the total amount of relevant instances that were retrieved. A model that produces no false negatives has a recall of 1.
  • F1 score: In certain cases, we want to maximize either recall or precision at the expense of another metric, however in most cases, we want to find an optimal blend of precision and recall, and F1 score is used to combine the same. This is the harmonic mean of precision and recall.

From table 3 in the summary interpretation of results for various classifiers:

 

Logistic Regression

SVM

Ratings

Precision

Recall

F1-Score

Support

Precision

Recall

F1-Score

Support

1

0.68

0.71

0.69

3844

0.7

0.56

0.62

3844

2

0.24

0.24

0.24

1122

1

0

0

1122

3

0.27

0.2

0.23

1409

0.42

0

0.01

1409

4

0.34

0.2

0.25

2606

0.22

0

0

2606

5

0.8

0.9

0.85

11415

0.66

0.99

0.79

11415

Accuracy

 

 

0.69

20396

 

 

0.66

20396

 

Naïve Bayes

Random Forest

Ratings

Precision

Recall

F1-Score

Support

Precision

Recall

F1-Score

Support

1

0.77

0.49

0.6

3844

0.61

0.33

0.43

3844

2

0

0

0

1122

0.88

0.07

0.13

1122

3

0

0

0

1409

0.92

0.07

0.13

1409

4

0.33

0

0

2606

0.77

0.06

0.11

2606

5

0.63

1

0.77

11415

0.62

0.97

0.76

11415

Accuracy

 

 

0.65

20396

 

 

0.62

20396

Table 3: Model Comparison

 

Logistic Regression

The accuracy of the logistic regression model was found to be 68.68%. The precision for class 1 is 0.68 which means out of all class 1 predictions the number of correct class 1 predictions is 0.61. The recall is found to be 0.71 which means the proportion of correctly predicted class 1 out of the total number of actual class 1 cases is 0.71. The F1 score is a harmonic mean of these two figures and the micro avg is the simple mean of f1 scores or precision-recall figures over all the classes. Here when we calculate the micro average scores, we gave the same weightage to all the classes. In weighted scores, we weight the scores from each class by the number of samples from that class. The micro F1 score is the same as the overall accuracy of the model. The micro-precision score and recall scores are the same. Since our data is highly imbalanced, it is better to look at the weighted f1 score to compare the models. It can be observed that the logistic regression was able to classify the class 1 and class 5 models accurately, but the other class predictions were abysmal. Thus, we need to explore other models that can overcome this potential issue.

SVM

The accuracy of the model was obtained as 66.19% which is the same as the micro F1 score for the model. The precision for the different classes in SVM is much better than the logistic regression model. However, it comes at the expense of the overall model accuracy. But considering the dataset at hand, and the fact that the reviews would be in general skewed to have a positive sentiment, SVM would be a better choice as to when compared to Logistic regression.

Naïve Bayes

Another classifier we explored was the Naïve Bayes classifier. The same idea and pipeline module were implemented in calculating the model performance. Even though at first glance, the model seems okay, it must be noted that the model performed the worst in predicting the class 2,3 and 4 ratings.

Random Forest

The final model tested in the analysis was the Random Forest model. A slight change was made in how the model was built. While constructing the document term matrix using the TF-IDF model, both bigrams and unigrams were considered while building the Document Term Matrix. Rather than using a count vectorizer, a TF-IDF vectorizer was directly utilized in the model to understand the effects on the model accuracy. It can be observed that the random forest model with the ngram technique was able to improve the precision scores for all the classes. For example, for class 3 ratings, out of all the predicted class 3 ratings, 92% of them were correct. However, this reduced the recall score for all the classes consequently. For class 3 ratings, out of the total actual number of class 3 cases, only 7% were predicted correctly by the model. The model has a micro average F1 score of 0.62 which corresponds to the overall accuracy of the model. 

 

 

 

Conclusion

Summary

We have approached this project from two angles.

One, a business / real-world perspective where we use techniques of topic modeling to point out the top positive and negative aspects of brands based on user reviews. We focused on the application of LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation) and NMF (Non-Matrix Factorization) towards achieving this goal.

The second aspect of the project was academic in nature. We aimed to predict the user ratings based on user reviews by deploying logistic regression, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, and Naïve Bayes.

70% of the reviews were skewed to 4 and 5 ratings. The bi-modal distribution of ratings was observed for all the brands. This leads us to sentiment analysis.

We use standardized thresholds to classify sentences as either positive or negative. This is imperative given the skew of the ratings. So, we take a higher threshold of 0.5 to classify 4,5 ratings for the rest 0 cut off. We use both TextBlob and Vader for this purpose.

Next, we proceed to do topic modeling, which is a technique used to extract meaningful information from vast amounts of data. We try to label different topics among all the cell phone reviews in order to provide business recommendations to sellers. LDA and NMF are the two techniques we have used to do topic modeling.

Input to the topic modeling technique is a document-term matrix, where the rows are different documents and columns are different terms and values in the matrix are the word counts. Each topic will consist of a bag of words not necessarily ordered. The output of topic modeling will be top words in each topic highlighting themes across various user reviews. From the output, we can interpret results and see if the bag of words in each topic makes sense.

We perform topic modeling for 3 major players in the Smartphone segment: Apple, Samsung, and Xiaomi. The detailed findings are explained in the previous sections.

Once we complete topic modeling, we proceed to expand our academic interests by creating a predictive model that gives the user ratings based on their reviews. The ability to successfully decide whether a review will be helpful to other customers and thus give the product more exposure is vital to companies that support these reviews, companies like Google, Amazon, and Yelp! We use Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, SVM, and Random Forest to create such a model.

Future work

Some of the steps that we take to further our study:

  • Cleaning is a very important aspect especially for sentiment analysis and topic modeling. Although we have taken multiple steps to do the cleaning aspects like removing stop words, removing special characters through a regular expression, stemming and lemmatization we can do further exploratory data analysis and further clean the dataset for more accurate results.
  • The reliability of data available is very important for accurately making inferences of the results of sentiment analysis and topic modeling. This could be increased by gathering more data about the authenticity of the users which would prevent bias in the results.
  • We saw from the data that we have unbalanced rating classes with data biased towards rating 4,5. While predicting the ratings from user reviews it is necessary to balance the data appropriately to remove the bias. This was not incorporated in the current study although we interpreted the results considering the bias. This step could be incorporated to get more accurate results.
  • Although we compared 4 models and got a decent accuracy score, we can always venture to new models to gain insights and further enhance our analysis.
Comments