This paper presents a novel research problem on joint discovery of commonalities and differences between two individual documents (or document sets), called Comparative Document Analysis (CDA). Given any pair of documents from a document collection, CDA aims to automatically identify sets of quality phrases to summarize the commonalities of both documents and highlight the distinctions of each with respect to the other informatively and concisely. Our solution uses a general graph-based framework to derive novel measures on phrase semantic commonality and pairwise distinction , and guides the selection of sets of phrases by solving two joint optimization problems. We develop an iterative algorithm to integrate the maximization of phrase commonality or distinction measure with the learning of phrase-document semantic relevance in a mutually enhancing way. Experiments on text corpora from two different domains---scientific publications and news---demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed method on comparing individual documents. Our case study on comparing news articles published at different dates shows the power of the proposed method on comparing document sets.
This paper studies the problem of identifying comparative sentences in text documents. The problem is related to but quite different from sentiment opinion sentence identification or classification. Sentiment classification studies the problem of classifying a document or a sentence based on the subjective opinion of the author. An important application area of sentiment opinion identification is business intelligence as a product manufacturer always wants to know consumers' opinions on its products. Comparisons on the other hand can be subjective or objective. Furthermore, a comparison is not concerned with an object in isolation. Instead, it compares the object with others. An example opinion sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is poor". An example comparative sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is not as good as that of CD player Y". Clearly, these two sentences give different information. Their language constructs are quite different too. Identifying comparative sentences is also useful in practice because direct comparisons are perhaps one of the most convincing ways of evaluation, which may even be more important than opinions on each individual object. This paper proposes to study the comparative sentence identification problem. It first categorizes comparative sentences into different types, and then presents a novel integrated pattern discovery and supervised learning approach to identifying comparative sentences from text documents. Experiment results using three types of documents, news articles, consumer reviews of products, and Internet forum postings, show a precision of 79 and recall of 81 . More detailed results are given in the paper. This paper presents a study of a novel summarization problem called contrastive opinion summarization (COS). Given two sets of positively and negatively opinionated sentences which are often the output of an existing opinion summarizer, COS aims to extract comparable sentences from each set of opinions and generate a comparative summary containing a set of contrastive sentence pairs. We formally formulate the problem as an optimization problem and propose two general methods for generating a comparative summary using the framework, both of which rely on measuring the content similarity and contrastive similarity of two sentences. We study several strategies to compute these two similarities. We also create a test data set for evaluating such a novel summarization problem. Experiment results on this test set show that the proposed methods are effective for generating comparative summaries of contradictory opinions. Understanding large-scale document collections in an efficient manner is an important problem. Usually, document data are associated with other information (e.g., an author's gender, age, and location) and their links to other entities (e.g., co-authorship and citation networks). For the analysis of such data, we often have to reveal common as well as discriminative characteristics of documents with respect to their associated information, e.g., male- vs. female-authored documents, old vs. new documents, etc. To address such needs, this paper presents a novel topic modeling method based on joint nonnegative matrix factorization, which simultaneously discovers common as well as discriminative topics given multiple document sets. Our approach is based on a block-coordinate descent framework and is capable of utilizing only the most representative, thus meaningful, keywords in each topic through a novel pseudo-deflation approach. We perform both quantitative and qualitative evaluations using synthetic as well as real-world document data sets such as research paper collections and nonprofit micro-finance data. We show our method has a great potential for providing in-depth analyses by clearly identifying common and discriminative topics among multiple document sets. Multinomial distributions over words are frequently used to model topics in text collections. A common, major challenge in applying all such topic models to any text mining problem is to label a multinomial topic model accurately so that a user can interpret the discovered topic. So far, such labels have been generated manually in a subjective way. In this paper, we propose probabilistic approaches to automatically labeling multinomial topic models in an objective way. We cast this labeling problem as an optimization problem involving minimizing Kullback-Leibler divergence between word distributions and maximizing mutual information between a label and a topic model. Experiments with user study have been done on two text data sets with different genres.The results show that the proposed labeling methods are quite effective to generate labels that are meaningful and useful for interpreting the discovered topic models. Our methods are general and can be applied to labeling topics learned through all kinds of topic models such as PLSA, LDA, and their variations. In this paper, we define and study a novel text mining problem, which we refer to as Comparative Text Mining (CTM). Given a set of comparable text collections, the task of comparative text mining is to discover any latent common themes across all collections as well as summarize the similarity and differences of these collections along each common theme. This general problem subsumes many interesting applications, including business intelligence and opinion summarization. We propose a generative probabilistic mixture model for comparative text mining. The model simultaneously performs cross-collection clustering and within-collection clustering, and can be applied to an arbitrary set of comparable text collections. The model can be estimated efficiently using the Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm. We evaluate the model on two different text data sets (i.e., a news article data set and a laptop review data set), and compare it with a baseline clustering method also based on a mixture model. Experiment results show that the model is quite effective in discovering the latent common themes across collections and performs significantly better than our baseline mixture model. To facilitate direct comparisons between different products, we present an approach to constructing short and comparative summaries based on product reviews. In particular, the user can view automatically aligned pairs of snippets describing reviewers' opinions on different features (also selected automatically by our approach) for two selected products. We propose a submodular objective function that avoids redundancy, that is efficient to optimize, and that aligns the snippets into pairs. Snippets are chosen from product reviews and thus easy to obtain. In our experiments, we show that the method constructs qualitatively good summaries, and that it can be tuned via supervised learning. This paper presents a two-stage approach to summarizing multiple contrastive viewpoints in opinionated text. In the first stage, we use an unsupervised probabilistic approach to model and extract multiple viewpoints in text. We experiment with a variety of lexical and syntactic features, yielding significant performance gains over bag-of-words feature sets. In the second stage, we introduce Comparative LexRank, a novel random walk formulation to score sentences and pairs of sentences from opposite viewpoints based on both their representativeness of the collection as well as their contrastiveness with each other. Experimental results show that the proposed approach can generate informative summaries of viewpoints in opinionated text. Contrastive summarization is the problem of jointly generating summaries for two entities in order to highlight their differences. In this paper we present an investigation into contrastive summarization through an implementation and evaluation of a contrastive opinion summarizer in the consumer reviews domain.  Web 2.0 technology has enabled more and more people to freely express their opinions on the Web, making the Web an extremely valuable source for mining user opinions about all kinds of topics. In this paper we study how to automatically integrate opinions expressed in a well-written expert review with lots of opinions scattering in various sources such as blogspaces and forums. We formally define this new integration problem and propose to use semi-supervised topic models to solve the problem in a principled way. Experiments on integrating opinions about two quite different topics (a product and a political figure) show that the proposed method is effective for both topics and can generate useful aligned integrated opinion summaries. The proposed method is quite general. It can be used to integrate a well written review with opinions in an arbitrary text collection about any topic to potentially support many interesting applications in multiple domains.