Prediction of User Opinion for Products
A Bag-of-Words and Collaborative Filtering based Approach
Esteban Garc
´
ıa-Cuesta
1
, Daniel G
´
omez-Vergel
1
, Luis Gracia-Exp
´
osito
1
and Mar
´
ıa Vela-P
´
erez
2
1
Computer Science Department, Universidad Europea de Madrid,
Calle Tajo S/N Villaviciosa de Od
´
on 28670, Madrid, Spain
2
Departamento de Estad
´
ıstica e Investigaci
´
on Operativa II, Facultad de Ciencias Econ
´
omicas y Empresariales,
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, Madrid, Spain
Keywords:
User Opinion, Recommendation Systems, User Modeling, Prediction, Hyper-personalization.
Abstract:
The rapid proliferation of social network services (SNS) gives people the opportunity to express their thoughts,
opinions, and tastes on a wide variety of subjects such as movies or commercial items. Most item shopping
websites currently provide SNS systems to collect users’ opinions, including rating and text reviews. In
this context, user modeling and hyper-personalization of contents reduce information overload and improve
both the efficiency of the marketing process and the user’s overall satisfaction. As is well known, users’
behavior is usually subject to sparsity and their preferences remain hidden in a latent subspace. A majority
of recommendation systems focus on ranking the items by describing this subspace appropriately but neglect
to properly justify why they should be recommended based on the user’s opinion. In this paper, we intend to
extract the intrinsic opinion subspace from users’ text reviews –by means of collaborative filtering techniques–
in order to capture their tastes and predict their future opinions on items not yet reviewed. We will show how
users’ reviews can be predicted by using a set of words related to their opinions.
1 INTRODUCTION
The advent of the Internet and its social websites have
made it possible for people to express their opin-
ions with great ease. This is particularly true in e-
commerce web sites –e.g., Amazon– where users may
read published opinions to gather a first impression
on an item before purchasing it. This information
may also be used to design better marketing strate-
gies, to hyper-personalize the website, and to im-
prove the user’s experience. Recall that by hyper-
personalization we doesn’t only mean the process of
adaptation to the user’s needs and their characteristics
but also to provide some insights about it.
In this sense, recommender systems have truly
transformed the way users interact and discover prod-
ucts on the web. Whenever a user assesses any type of
product there exists the need to model how the assess-
ment is done to be able to recommend new products
they may be interested in (McAuley and Leskovec,
2013a), or to identify users of similar taste (Sharma
and Cosley., 2013). To model users and the way
they evaluate and review products it becomes neces-
sary to unveil the latent structure of their opinions.
In (McAuley and Leskovec, 2013b), for instance,
the authors present a hidden factor model to under-
stand why any two users may agree when reviewing a
movie yet disagree when reviewing another: The fact
that users may have similar preferences towards one
genre, but opposite preferences for another turns out
to be of primary importance in this context.
Incorporating the latent factors associated with
users is, therefore, a fundamental step in any rec-
ommendation system (Bennet and Lanning, 2007).
Typically, these systems use plain-text reviews and/or
numerical scores, along with machine learning al-
gorithms, to predict the scores that users will give
to items that remain still unreviewed (Y. Koren and
Volinsky, 2009). In (McAuley and Leskovec, 2013b)
authors also propose the use of these latent factors not
for prediction, but to achieve a better understanding of
the rating dimensions –to be connected to the intrin-
sic features of users and their likes–, hence improving
the user modeling process.
Our starting hypothesis is that by assuming the
existence of a latent space that accurately represents
the users’ interests and tastes (see (McAuley and
Leskovec, 2013b)) we may be able to predict their
opinions/reviews. Rather than using the latent space
to predict ratings, we intend therefore to predict the
García-Cuesta, E., Gómez-Vergel, D., Expósito, L. and Vela-Pérez, M.
Prediction of User Opinion for Products - A Bag-of-Words and Collaborative Filtering based Approach.
DOI: 10.5220/0006209602330238
In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods (ICPRAM 2017), pages 233-238
ISBN: 978-989-758-222-6
Copyright
c
 2017 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
233

sets of words that users will choose to express their
opinions on not previously reviewed items. The ap-
proach is based on two stages. The first one sets up
the opinion dictionary, not too large as to impede nu-
merical computations, but rich enough as to character-
ize the users’ opinions in this product reviewing con-
text. Take the words ’expensive’ and ’good quality’
for example,
1
the former being a purely subjective
term which expresses a negative opinion about a prod-
uct, the latter expressing a positive opinion instead.
We would like these terms to be part of the dictionary
since they convey relevant information on the user’s
opinion. We want to stress the fact, however, that this
article does not address a sentiment analysis problem,
that is, we do not try to find out whether the item’s
review is positive or negative. The second stage pre-
dicts the set of words a user would choose had they
had the opportunity to review an item, based on the
hidden dimensions that represent their tastes.
1.1 Contributions
Our main contribution is to propose and describe –
for the very first time, to the best of the authors’
knowledge– a model that combines the use of hidden
dimensions (associated with users’ tastes and product
features) and a matrix factorization approach to pre-
dict the user’s opinion on not reviewed items. The
results show that the prediction of the set of words
which best describes a review is possible and gives,
at this early stage of development, an initial under-
standing of the main reasons why a user would like or
dislike a product. This is important since this infor-
mation can be used to complement the rating’s value
and provide extra information to the user whenever
a new product is recommended. Thus, this approach
can be used together with the current recommenda-
tion systems to provide further insight into the reasons
why the product is recommended to a specific user,
knowing that the very same product can be recom-
mended to another user for completely different rea-
sons. We applied this approach to the Amazon mu-
sical instrument dataset (J. McAuley and Leskovec,
2015), which contains a total of 85, 405 reviews for
1429 users and 900 products. We chose this dataset
due to its ease of interpretability and reasonable size
(notice that, since we insert a dictionary vector of
size D into the matrix for each review, the overall
size of the dataset increases by a factor 10
2
).
2
The
1
We work with concepts provided by the natural lan-
guage analysis tool, so terms can be compositions of several
words.
2
We use 20 executors with 8 cores and 16GB RAM on a
Hadoop cluster with a total of 695GB RAM, 336 cores, and
rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
contains the state-of-the-art on recommendation sys-
tems based on user modeling and collaborative filter-
ing approaches and explains the similarities and dif-
ferences with our proposal. Section 3 describes the
experiments we conducted to test the implemented
model. We show our results in Section 4 and discuss
the model’s strengths and weaknesses. Finally, Sec-
tion 5 presents the conclusions and some insights into
future work.
2 USER MODELING BASED ON
OPINIONS
In what follows, we introduce some terminology and
the formal notation we use throughout the paper, as
well as a brief review on the traditional user model-
ing approaches to recommendation. We then proceed
to explain in full detail our new opinion prediction
model based on tensor factorization.
2.1 Notation
A typical online shopping website with SNS capabil-
ities provides, for the purposes of this article, N re-
viewers A = {u
1
, . . . , u
N
} writing reviews on a set of
M items P = {p
1
, . . . , p
M
}. Generally, a given user
will have only scored and reviewed a subset of these
M items, thus making the website’s ranking matrix
sparse. Let S ⊆ A × P denote the set of user-item
pairs (u, i) for which a written review exists and let
t
ui
be the associated feature vector that represents the
text contents of the u-th user’s review on the i-th item
in the dataset. More specifically, we use the bag-of-
words features extracted from the text reviews to rep-
resent the user’s review. The review bag-of-words
vector is then defined by t
ui
∈ R
D
, where D is the
word vocabulary size. We will incorporate these re-
views into a fundamental model that predicts users’
opinions (i.e., t
ui
vectors) on items not included in S.
2.2 Basic Related Work on
Recommendation Systems
Most existing recommendation systems fit into one of
the following two categories: i) content based recom-
mendation or ii) collaborative filtering (CF) systems.
The first approach addresses the recommendation
problem by defining a user profile model U that repre-
2TB HDFS. Our implemented algorithms are easily scal-
able, so any RAM limitation might be solved using a cluster
with a sufficiently large number of nodes.
ICPRAM 2017 - 6th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods
234

Table 1: Notation.
Symbol Description
t
ui
u-th user’s review (’document’) on i-th item
K number of latent dimensions
D number of words in the dictionary
t
ui j
j-th word of the t
ui
vector
f
ui j
frequency of occurrence of the t
ui j
word
N
t
number of words in the text t
S all (u,i) pairs of existing reviews
u user
i item
R text reviews input matrix in R
N×(M×D)
sents all the information available on a user. In a basic
problem setup, U includes the users’ preferences for
a set of items, later used to describe the users’ likes
and dislikes. One of the main drawbacks of this ba-
sic approach is the fact that it ignores users’ opinions
on different elements, taking only their preferences
into consideration. Previous studies (W. Zhang and
Li, 2010) proposed the use of sentiment analysis to
find out the set of words that positively describes user
preferences to be able to predict the sentiment value.
This proposal was later extended in (Chen and Wang,
2013)(L. Fangtao and Zhu, 2011) to enhance the user
profile’s description by using linear combinations of
the initial set or a subset of words. Both articles rely
on a user profile which is built a priori and used later
on to predict the recommendations. This methodol-
ogy, however, does not attempt to reflect the intrinsic
likes and dislikes of users on different items, focus-
ing on a more general description of their preferences
instead.
One way of resolving this limitation consists in
including the text features of the user’s reviews (more
specifically, frequencies of occurrence of words) into
the model. In (L. Fangtao and Zhu, 2011), the authors
incorporate reviews, items, and text features into a
three-dimensional tensor description to reveal the dif-
ferent sentiment effects that arise when the same word
is used by different users in ranking different items.
The authors showed an improvement on the ranking
prediction when compared to previous models. In a
similar fashion, (M. Terzi and Whittle, 2011) presents
an extension of the user-kNN algorithm that measures
the similarity between users in terms of the similari-
ties between text reviews –instead of using numerical
ratings only–, applying a collaborative filtering model
to predict the ranking recommendations. The authors
claim that their model outperforms the conventional
algorithms that only use the ratings as inputs.
Despite the successful achievements of this last
two proposals, notice that none of them attempt to
predict the user’s opinion and reveal the intrinsic fea-
tures behind an item’s recommendation.
Figure 1: 2D representation of the input matrix R.
2.3 Explaining Recommendations by
Predicting the Opinion
Next, we discuss how a careful interpretation of the
prediction about a user’s review can justify the recom-
mendation, helping us achieve a better understanding
of the reasons why the user may like/dislike the prod-
uct. Table 2 shows two Amazon reviews to explain
how this interpretation is done. The first column con-
tains the original reviews and the second one includes
the predicted sets of words obtained with our model.
We can tell at a glance that the first reviewer com-
plains about a bad headphones’ ergonomic design,
something which is reasonably predicted in the sec-
ond column by the words ’bass’ and ’vibration’. In
the second example the review praises the good per-
formance of the earphones, a fact that is predicted by
the words ’purchase’, ’happy’, and ’better’.
Table 2: Example of Amazon review parts for a drum prod-
uct and concepts associated in our dictionary.
Review Text Prediction
The bass drum vibrates. bass; vibration
Be happy if you purchase this, because you will never find purchase; happy; better
a better deal for this.
Our model makes use of a collaborative filtering
model reviewed in the next section.
2.3.1 Collaborative Filtering
A rich collection of algorithms and recommender sys-
tems has been developed over the last two decades.
The wide range of domains and applications shows
that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the
recommendation problem and that a careful analysis
of prospective users and their goals is necessary to
achieve good results.
Collaborative filtering, in particular, is a technique
that generates automatic predictions for a user by col-
lecting taste information from other people. The in-
formation domain for these systems consists of users
who already expressed their preferences for various
items, represented by (user, item, rating) triples. The
rating is typically a natural number between zero and
five or a two-valued like/dislike variable. Usually, the
associated rating matrix is subject to sparsity due to
the existence of unrated items. The full evaluation
Prediction of User Opinion for Products - A Bag-of-Words and Collaborative Filtering based Approach
235

process often requires the completion of two tasks: (i)
predicting the unknown ratings and (ii) providing the
best ranked list of n items for a given user (M. D. Ek-
strand and Konstan, 2012).
2.3.2 Predicting the Opinion using Alternating
Least Squares (ALS)
Our information domain consists of triples of the form
(u, i, t
ui
), where u is a natural number that labels a
user, i labels an item, and t
ui
is the corresponding re-
view vector (possibly empty). Let R ∈ R
N×(M×D)
be
the 2-dimensional input matrix (typically subject to
sparsity) with entries f
ui j
≥ 0 only for pairs (u, i) ∈ S.
Here, f
ui j
denotes the frequency of occurence (if any)
of the j-th word in the u-th user’s review for the i-th
item in the dataset. If we let R
i
denote the (N × D)-
matrix containing all reviews for the i-th product, then
R = [R
0
R
1
··· R
M
] is set up by concatenating all R
i
matrices. This R matrix represents a high dimen-
sional space where the users’ opinions (either posi-
tive or negative) are latent and can be represented by
a subset of new features in a lower dimensional space.
Matrix R can then be subjected to an ALS fac-
torization (Y. Koren and Volinsky, 2009) of the form
R ≈ PQ
T
in order to estimate the missing reviews.
Here, P ∈ R
N×K
and Q ∈ R
(M×D)×K
, where K ∈ N
is the number of latent factors or features –in our
model, a predefined constant typically in the range
2 ≤ K ≤ 10. Any frequency f
ui j
can then be ap-
proximated by the usual scalar product
ˆ
f
ui j
= p
T
u
q
i j
,
with p
u
∈ R
K×1
the u-th row of P and q
i j
∈ R
K×1
the
(iD + j)-th row of Q.
3 EXPERIMENTS
We test our model using the musical instruments
Amazon dataset for experimentation, which contains
user-product-rating-review quads for a total of 85, 405
reviews for 1429 users and 900 products (J. McAuley
and Leskovec, 2015).
3
At a first step, we process the reviews using a
natural language processing API graciously provided
to us by Bitext corportation,
4
making all the ba-
sic tokenization, lemmatization, PoS (R. Benjamins
and Gomez, 2014), and concept identification tasks
straightforward. This enables us to syntactically ana-
lyze the texts in an efficient manner in order to extract
the simple (e.g., ’cheap’) and compound (e.g., ’dig-
ital products’) concepts to be part of the dictionary,
including concepts related to sentiment.
3
http://jmcauley.ucsd.edu/data/amazon/
4
https://www.bitext.com
Figure 2: 3D matrix representation of the ’missing’ values
R
test
to be predicted and used for validation.
At this stage, we keep track of the (usually dif-
ferent) sets of words used by each customer in their
product reviews, along with their frequencies of oc-
currence. The final version of the dictionary -from
now on referred to as global- is obtained by taking the
union of the individual users’ lists of words. To only
retain the most relevant concepts and keep the size
of the dictionary manageable for subsequent compu-
tations, we impose a minimum global frequency of
occurrence on any given word to be included into the
list ( f = 100 in the first experimentation round and
f = 50 in the second, collecting 116 and 256 concepts
respectively). Table 3 shows a subset of the concepts
that best represent the users’ opinions after applying
the aforementioned frequency filtering.
Table 3: Some of the concepts included in the opinion dic-
tionary for the minimum frequency of occurrence of 50.
’good’, ’music’, ’inexpensive’, ’standard’, ’amazing’,
’easy’, ’good quality’, ’boom’, ’quick’, ’cheap’, ’decent’,
’5 star’, ’durable’, ’highly recommend’, ’accurate’,
’pretty good’, ’would recommend’, ’no problem’, ’gig gag’,
’best’, ’good price’, ’much better’, ’amazing’,
’very pleased’, ’yes’, ’very good’, ’fun’, ’great’, ’standard’,
’durable’, ’recommend’, ’strong’, ’very happy’,
’keep’, ’love’, ’really nice’, ’not bad’, ’sturdy’,
’good product’, ’handy’, ’try’,’quality’, ”can not’,
’cool’, ’comfortable’, soft’, ’excellent’, ’much better’,
’fantastic’, ’quick’, ’hard’, ’low’, ’great value’,
’break’, ’price’, ’big’, ’wow’, ’great product’,
’try’,’worth’, ’problem’, ’wrong’, ’distortion’,
’simple’, ’soft’, or ’inexpensive’.
Next, we randomly remove 30% of the word lists
—that is, t
ui
reviews — from the 2-dimensional R
matrix to validate our model, giving raise to a train
set R
train
and a test set R
test
. The way to achieve this
is straightforward: We pick 30% of all user-item co-
ordinates (u, i) ∈ S at random –a total of 3073 pairs–
and replace their corresponding word lists with empty
ICPRAM 2017 - 6th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods
236

vectors. The resulting sparse matrix R
train
is finally
subjected to ALS factorization in order to reconstruct
the removed vectors and compare them with the orig-
inals.
All our codes are implemented in Python 3.5 using
the collaborative filtering RDD-based Apache Spark
implementation of the ALS algorithm,
5
which is well
known for its robustness and efficiency. This imple-
mentation, in turn, makes use of the MLlib library.
6
4 RESULTS
We use the L2 norm to evaluate the training perfor-
mance and the overall quality of the predictions, as
shown in table 4.
Table 4: Results obtained for the different experiments.
#Concepts K Exec.Time (Min.) Avg./Std. Jaccard Avg./Std. L2 norm
116 5 16 0.17/0.14 2.01/1.17
256 5 33 0.12/0.10 2.20/1.20
116 7 16 0.11/0.11 2.25/1.23
256 7 33 0.12/0.11 2.25/1.24
116 10 16 0.16/0.13 2.01/1.19
256 10 33 0.11/0.11 2.23/1.25
We also use the Jaccard distance to evaluate
whether a word appears or not in the prediction in the
following sense: If the test set R
test
contains a posi-
tive frequency for a t
ui j
word and this word also ap-
pears in the train set R
train
, then the Jaccard distance
t
test,ui j
− t
train,ui j
is zero; otherwise it is 1. No sig-
nificant differences are observed in the results when
varying the number of latent factors from 5 to 10. The
number of concepts (the word vocabulary size) does
not seem to significantly alter the results either, al-
though the L2 distance values suggest that a smaller
number of concepts yields a smaller error. The reason
for this behavior can be found in the fact that, if the
word vocabulary size remains small the selected con-
cepts are really the most frequently used, and hence,
they generate more easily recognizable patterns.
Figure 3 shows that the Jaccard distance tends to
concentrate more around the mean and its lower val-
ues (exponential decay) than the Euclidean distance,
a fact that may find explanation in the very definition
of Jaccard distance we are using.
In table 5 we also show a qualitative comparison
between original reviews and their predictions for the
“best” and the “worst” case based on the L2 error. In
both cases we observe a larger number of concepts
in the prediction than in the original review. This is
particularly true in the worst case (which has an error
of 4.15 in L2); in this case, we are able to predict the
5
It is part of the MLlib Apache’s Library.
6
Apache Spark’s scalable machine learning library.
Figure 3: Euclidean (top) and Jaccard (bottom) distances
histograms for K=5 (left) and K=10 (right) with a frequency
filtering of 50.
concepts present in the original review, but also many
others that were not originally part of it (e.g., ’break’,
’accurate’, or ’awesome’). In the best case (which has
an error of 1.68 in L2) the prediction is almost perfect
but we were not able to generate the concept ’would
recommend’, obtaining ’problem’ instead, which is
not used in the original text.
We want to highlight however that, due to the large
vocabulary size and sparsity of the data, many reviews
are predicted as zero vectors even though they contain
nonzero frequencies in the training set. This makes it
advisable to use a variant of the ALS method specifi-
cally optimized for low-rank matrices, a problem that
we attempt to address in the future.
Table 5: Example of a Amazon review text and prediction.
Review Text Real Prediction Quality
Good little connector cable. Well constructed, ’cable’, ’good’, ’cable’,’good’ Best
durable, built to last. I would recommend ’well’,’would recommend’ ’well’,’problem’,
this cable to connect stomp boxes. ’perfect’
Worth it.
I’ve been stringing my guitars with ’very nice’,’tone’ ’very nice, ’tone’ Worst
D’Addario for several years. While my ’quality’,’prefer’,’lighter’ ’lighter’
jazz box is set up with heavy strings, my ’high’,’good’ ’high’,’good’,
Les Paul goes lighter–horses for courses, ’best’ ’best’,’great’,
you might say. I’ve been using D’Addario XL ’awesome’,’finger’,’happy’
strings on this guitar for a while, although ’highly recommend’,’like’
it’s the EXL140 (slightly larger bottoms). ’price’,’would recommend’
But why not give these lighter strings a try? ’wow’,’worth’,’nice’
The quality is obviously high. Tone is good,
as is durability. If you do much complex
chording, you’re going to miss the heavier
string, but for shredders and pure rock players
these are very nice. I’ll be going back to
the EXL 140s, since I prefer the more positive
feel of the larger string. But fat or skinny,
D’Addario makes some of the best strings out there.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
We have shown in this paper that it is possible to
predict a user’s review for a previously unreviewed
product by means of a CF based model. This method
uses a pre-built opinion dictionary that only contains
the words that do represent concepts. For this pur-
Prediction of User Opinion for Products - A Bag-of-Words and Collaborative Filtering based Approach
237

pose we used state-of-the-art NLP tools and imple-
mented a new ALS-based algorithm to unveil the la-
tent dimensions that best represent the user’s expres-
siveness. The fundamental idea behind the model is
that the different reasons that lead to a user’s opinion
(expressed in a review) may be captured by those la-
tent factors, and hence, they can be predicted through
a direct comparison with other users of similar taste.
The results show that the model, although still at
a preliminary stage of development, is able to de-
duce the latent dimensions and that the predictions
are meaningful enough as to provide a useful insight
into the potential opinion of a user on a new product.
These results are far from final, however. A better
dictionary, more representative of the users’ tastes, is
necessary to obtain more accurate predictions. Our
preliminary results indicate the presence of concepts
of very little value that should better be avoided if this
approach is really to be used to provide explanations
in recommendation systems.
Finally, we mentioned the scalability of this new
approach –implemented using a Hadoop based clus-
ter and its distributed computational and storage re-
sources. We intend to conduct further and more ex-
haustive analysis in larger datasets, with larger dictio-
naries, by enlarging these capabilities. It is our be-
lieve that a deeper analysis of the latent factors and
their categorization will allow a better understanding
of the conceptual parts of a language involved in the
users’ opinions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors want to thank Bitext (http://bitext.com)
for providing NLP services for research. They also
acknowledge the support the Universidad Europea de
Madrid through the E-Modelo research project. Spe-
cial thanks to Hugo Seage for developing a significant
part of the code used for experimentation, and to Jose
M. L
´
opez and Javier Garc
´
ıa-Blas for their insightful
comments.
REFERENCES
Bennet, J. and Lanning, S. (2007). The netflix prize. In
KDD Cup and Workshop.
Chen, L. and Wang, F. (2013). Preference-based cluster-
ing reviews for augmenting e-commerce recommen-
dation. In Knowledge-Based Systems (2013).
J. McAuley, R. P. and Leskovec, J. (2015). Inferring net-
works of substitutable and complementary products.
In Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
L. Fangtao, L. Nathan, J. H. K. Z. Q. Y. and Zhu, X. (2011).
Incorporating reviewer and item information for re-
view rating prediction. In Proc. of the 23rd IJCAI,
AAAI Press (2011), pages 1820–1825.
M. D. Ekstrand, J. T. R. and Konstan, J. A. (2012). Col-
laborative filtering recommender systems. In Foun-
dations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction,
pages 81–173.
M. Terzi, M. Rowe, M. F. and Whittle, J. (2011). Text-
based user-knn: measuring user similarity based on
text reviews. In Adaptation and Personalization, Ed.
Springer, pages 195–206.
McAuley, J. and Leskovec, J. (2013a). From amateurs to
connoisseurs:modeling the evolution of user expertise
through online reviews. In WWW, 2013.
McAuley, J. and Leskovec, J. (2013b). Hidden factors and
hidden topics: understanding rating dimension wih re-
view text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference
on Recommender Systems, RecSys, 2013.
R. Benjamins, David Cadenas, P. A. A. V. and Gomez, J.
(2014). The voice of the customer for digital telcos. In
Proceedings of the Industry Track at the International
Semantic Web Conference 2014.
Sharma, A. and Cosley., D. (2013). Do social explanations
work? studying and modeling the effects of social ex-
planations in recommender systems. In WWW, 2013.
W. Zhang, G. Ding, L. C. and Li, C. (2010). Augment-
ing chinese online video recommendations by using
virtual ratings predicted by review sentiment classifi-
cation. In Proc. Of the IEEE ICDM Workshops. IEEE
Computer Society, Washington, DC (2010).
Y. Koren, R. B. and Volinsky, C. (2009). Matrix factoriza-
tion techniques for recommender systems. In Journal
Computer, IEEE Computer Society Press, pages 30–
37.
ICPRAM 2017 - 6th International Conference on Pattern Recognition Applications and Methods
238