SURF: Summarizer of User Reviews Feedback

Continuous Delivery (CD) enables mobile developers to release small, high quality chunks of working software in a rapid manner. However, faster delivery and a higher software quality do neither guarantee user satisfaction nor positive business outcomes. Previous work demonstrates that app reviews may contain crucial information that can guide developer's software maintenance efforts to obtain higher customer satisfaction. However, previous work also proves the difficulties encountered by developers in manually analyzing this rich source of data, namely (i) the huge amount of reviews an app may receive on a daily basis and (ii) the unstructured nature of their content. In this paper, we propose SURF (Summarizer of User Reviews Feedback), a tool able to (i) analyze and classify the information contained in app reviews and (ii) distill actionable change tasks for improving mobile applications. Specifically, SURF performs a systematic summarization of thousands of user reviews through the generation of an interactive, structured and condensed agenda of recommended software changes. An end-to-end evaluation of SURF, involving 2622 reviews related to 12 different mobile applications, demonstrates the high accuracy of SURF in summarizing user reviews content. In evaluating our approach we also involve the original developers of some apps, who confirm the practical usefulness of the software change recommendations made by SURF. Demo URL: https://youtu.be/Yf-U5ylJXvo Demo webpage: http://www.ifi.uzh.ch/en/seal/people/panichella/tools/SURFTool.html.

[1]  Walid Maalej,et al.  Bug report, feature request, or simply praise? On automatically classifying app reviews , 2015, 2015 IEEE 23rd International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[2]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[3]  Bernd Brügge,et al.  User involvement in software evolution practice: A case study , 2013, 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[4]  Harald C. Gall,et al.  DECA: Development Emails Content Analyzer , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C).

[5]  Xiaodong Gu,et al.  "What Parts of Your Apps are Loved by Users?" (T) , 2015, 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE).

[6]  Christopher D. Manning,et al.  The Stanford Typed Dependencies Representation , 2008, CF+CDPE@COLING.

[7]  Walid Maalej,et al.  User feedback in the appstore: An empirical study , 2013, 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE).

[8]  Gabriele Bavota,et al.  User reviews matter! Tracking crowdsourced reviews to support evolution of successful apps , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).

[9]  Harald C. Gall,et al.  ARdoc: app reviews development oriented classifier , 2016, SIGSOFT FSE.

[10]  Bernd Brügge,et al.  User Feedback in Mobile Development , 2014, MobileDeLi '14.

[11]  Harald C. Gall,et al.  What would users change in my app? summarizing app reviews for recommending software changes , 2016, SIGSOFT FSE.

[12]  Harald C. Gall,et al.  How can i improve my app? Classifying user reviews for software maintenance and evolution , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME).

[13]  Harald C. Gall,et al.  Development Emails Content Analyzer: Intention Mining in Developer Discussions (T) , 2015, 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE).

[14]  Ning Chen,et al.  AR-miner: mining informative reviews for developers from mobile app marketplace , 2014, ICSE.

[15]  Martin F. Porter,et al.  An algorithm for suffix stripping , 1997, Program.

[16]  Mihai Surdeanu,et al.  The Stanford CoreNLP Natural Language Processing Toolkit , 2014, ACL.