
Comparative opinion mining has lately gained traction among individuals and businesses due to its growing range of applications in brand reputation monitoring and consumer decision making among others. Past research in sub-field of opinion mining have mostly explored single-entity opinion mining models and the mining of comparative sentences suing single classifiers. Most of these studies relied on a limited number of comparative opinion labels and datasets while applying the techniques in limited domains. Consequently, the reported performances of the techniques might not be optimal in some cases like working with big data. In this study, however, we developed four hybrid machine learning techniques, with which we performed multi-class based comparative opinion mining using three datasets from different domains. From our results, the best-performing hybrid machine learning technique for comparative opinion mining using a multi-layer perceptron as the base estimator was the Multilayer Perceptron + Random Forest (MLP + RF). This technique had an average accuracy of 93.0% and an F1-score of 93.0%. These results show that our hybrid machine learning techniques could reliably be used for comparative opinion mining to support business needs like brand reputation monitoring.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
