| Literature DB >> 36236418 |
Keshav Kaushik1, Akashdeep Bhardwaj1, Susheela Dahiya1, Mashael S Maashi2, Moteeb Al Moteri3, Mohammed Aljebreen4, Salil Bharany5.
Abstract
Businesses need to use sentiment analysis, powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning to forecast accurately whether or not consumers are satisfied with their offerings. This paper uses a deep learning model to analyze thousands of reviews of Amazon Alexa to predict customer sentiment. The proposed model can be directly applied to any company with an online presence to detect customer sentiment from their reviews automatically. This research aims to present a suitable method for analyzing the users' reviews of Amazon Echo and categorizing them into positive or negative thoughts. A dataset containing reviews of 3150 users has been used in this research work. Initially, a word cloud of positive and negative reviews was plotted, which gave a lot of insight from the text data. After that, a deep learning model using a multinomial naive Bayesian classifier was built and trained using 80% of the dataset. Then the remaining 20% of the dataset was used to test the model. The proposed model gives 93% accuracy. The proposed model has also been compared with four models used in the same domain, outperforming three.Entities:
Keywords: alexa; amazon; artificial intelligence; internet of things; machine learning; natural language processing; smart devices
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236418 PMCID: PMC9570861 DOI: 10.3390/s22197318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Research Selection Methodology.
Research Selection & Classification.
| Grading Classification | Stage 1 | Stage 2 | Stage 3 | Stage 4 | Breakup |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 71 | 45 | 18 | 7 |
|
|
| 82 | 52 | 20 | 8 |
|
|
| 69 | 44 | 17 | 7 |
|
|
| 63 | 40 | 16 | 6 |
|
|
| 69 | 44 | 17 | 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2Research Methodology.
Dataset Information.
| Sr. No. | Dataset Column | Non-Null Count | Datatype |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | rating | 3150 | int64 |
| 2 | date | 3150 | Object |
| 3 | variation | 3150 | Object |
| 4 | verified_reviews | 3150 | Object |
| 5 | feedback | 3150 | int64 |
Statistical Summary of the dataset.
| Statistics | Rating | Feedback |
|---|---|---|
| count | 3150.000000 | 3150.000000 |
| mean | 4.463175 | 0.918413 |
| std | 1.068506 | 0.273778 |
| min | 1.000000 | 0.000000 |
| 25% | 4.000000 | 1.000000 |
| 50% | 5.000000 | 1.000000 |
| 75% | 5.000000 | 1.000000 |
| Max | 5.000000 | 1.000000 |
Figure 3(a): Plot of rating counts, (b): Plot of feedback counts.
Figure 4Histogram plot for the length of the review.
Figure 5(a) Wordcloud of positive reviews. (b) Wordcloud of negative reviews.
Figure 6Research Implemented.
Figure 7Confusion Matrix.
Classification Report.
| Classification | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.77 | 0.46 | 0.57 | 59 |
|
| 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 571 |
|
| 0.94 | 630 | ||
|
| 0.86 | 0.72 | 0.77 | 630 |
|
| 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 630 |
Classification Report of Logistic Regression.
| Classification | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.85 | 0.29 | 0.43 | 59 |
|
| 0.93 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 571 |
|
| 0.93 | 630 | ||
|
| 0.89 | 0.64 | 0.70 | 630 |
|
| 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 630 |
Comparative Analysis with similar approaches.
| Related Research Papers | Accuracy |
|---|---|
| [ | 98.17% |
| [ | 66.84% |
| [ | 70.55% |
| [ | 92.0% |
| Proposed Method | 94.0% |