跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1673新增论文
+1257其中 AI 相关
+197已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-13 17:24 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 14:16各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-12 17:26 — 2026-11-13 17:26(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-13 17:24最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 14:16库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,726 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-13 17:22(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.16201

An Extensive Evaluation of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches for Sentiment Analysis: Insights from Amazon Customer Reviews

Muhammed Ihsan Corak, Cuiyuan Wang, Xiaowen Zhang

原文摘要

The rapid growth of user-generated text on online platforms creates opportunities for understanding customer opinion and supporting data-driven decisions. This study compares five traditional machine learning classifiers (Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Bernoulli Naive Bayes, Linear Support Vector Classifier, and Multinomial Naive Bayes) and six deep learning architectures (LSTM, Bi-LSTM, GRU, RNN, Attention, and FastText) for three-class sentiment classification of 568,454 Amazon Fine Food Reviews. Machine learning models used Bag-of-Words (BoW) and TF-IDF features limited to 5,000 terms; deep learning models used learned embeddings over a 20,000-word vocabulary. Models were evaluated on the original imbalanced data and on a random-oversampled balanced set of 1,070,469 reviews, using accuracy, macro and per-class precision, recall, and F1-score, and training time. On the balanced set, Random Forest with BoW achieved 99\% accuracy and the Attention model achieved 98.7\%. Linear SVC reached 89\% accuracy in 1 min 15 s, and Logistic Regression reached 90\% in 3 min 37 s. On the imbalanced set, the Attention model achieved 97.8\% accuracy, and FastText achieved 95.3\% in 3 min 26 s, while the RNN reached 91.9\% with a neutral-class F1-score of 0.08. Deep learning models were more stable across class distributions, whereas the best classical model depended on balancing. We also report a user-facing application that applies the trained Random Forest and Attention models to new review text. Because the labels are derived from star ratings, the results measure agreement with rating-derived sentiment classes rather than annotated sentiment; the dataset is a single source, and the findings should be read with that limitation in mind.

cs.LG