Text sentiment analysis on E‐shopping product reviews using chaotic coyote optimized deep belief network approach

Text sentiment analysis is mainly used to the customers benefits. In the existing works, the text sentiment analysis faces more troubles such as, disambiguation (removing unwanted terms), discussions, contrast, intensity, and excessive flections and complex sound structure with less accuracy. In thi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Concurrency and computation 2022-08, Vol.34 (19), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Mohana, R. S., Rajathi, K., Kousalya, K., Yuvaraja, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Text sentiment analysis is mainly used to the customers benefits. In the existing works, the text sentiment analysis faces more troubles such as, disambiguation (removing unwanted terms), discussions, contrast, intensity, and excessive flections and complex sound structure with less accuracy. In this article, the text sentiment analysis on E‐shopping product using chaotic coyote optimized deep belief network approach is proposed to minimize the troubles in the sentiment analysis and increase the accuracy. The other name of sentiment analysis is subjective analysis. The main objective of this article is “classify the text sentiments according to the polarity (positive and negative) and to increase the accuracy.” Here, the E‐shopping Kaggle datasets are preprocessed and the features are extracted. Then, the extracted features of the trained data's are given using deep belief network (DBN) classifier to get pure sentiments (positive or negative) with accuracy. Here, the performance metrics of the accuracy, recall, and precision, F‐measure, specificity, and sensitivity are calculated. The simulation process is executed in Python platform. The proposed chaotic coyote optimized deep belief network (CCO‐DBN) attains accuracy 9.8%, precision 17.2%, recall 5.61%, F‐measure 17.07%, specificity 2.247%, sensitivity 13.25% is higher than the existing methods such as FCM‐DFA, GA, SVM‐RFA.
ISSN:1532-0626
1532-0634
DOI:10.1002/cpe.7039