跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.16201 · v1

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

首次提交 2026-11-12 10:47
版本更新 2026-11-12 10:47
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

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.

作者备注:56 pages, 44 figures, 16 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-12 10:47 · 最新观测版本

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

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.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗