File size: 72,704 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 |
{
"paper_id": "I05-1028",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T07:26:39.835521Z"
},
"title": "Assigning Polarity Scores to Reviews Using Machine Learning Techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Daisuke",
"middle": [],
"last": "Okanohara",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Tokyo",
"location": {
"addrLine": "7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku",
"postCode": "113-0013",
"settlement": "Hongo, Tokyo"
}
},
"email": ""
},
{
"first": "Jun",
"middle": [
"'"
],
"last": "Ichi Tsujii",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "University of Tokyo",
"location": {
"addrLine": "7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku",
"postCode": "113-0013",
"settlement": "Hongo, Tokyo"
}
},
"email": ""
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We propose a novel type of document classification task that quantifies how much a given document (review) appreciates the target object using not binary polarity (good or bad) but a continuous measure called sentiment polarity score (sp-score). An sp-score gives a very concise summary of a review and provides more information than binary classification. The difficulty of this task lies in the quantification of polarity. In this paper we use support vector regression (SVR) to tackle the problem. Experiments on book reviews with five-point scales show that SVR outperforms a multi-class classification method using support vector machines and the results are close to human performance.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "I05-1028",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We propose a novel type of document classification task that quantifies how much a given document (review) appreciates the target object using not binary polarity (good or bad) but a continuous measure called sentiment polarity score (sp-score). An sp-score gives a very concise summary of a review and provides more information than binary classification. The difficulty of this task lies in the quantification of polarity. In this paper we use support vector regression (SVR) to tackle the problem. Experiments on book reviews with five-point scales show that SVR outperforms a multi-class classification method using support vector machines and the results are close to human performance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In recent years, discussion groups, online shops, and blog systems on the Internet have gained popularity and the number of documents, such as reviews, is growing dramatically. Sentiment classification refers to classifying reviews not by their topics but by the polarity of their sentiment (e.g, positive or negative). It is useful for recommendation systems, fine-grained information retrieval systems, and business applications that collect opinions about a commercial product.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Recently, sentiment classification has been actively studied and experimental results have shown that machine learning approaches perform well [13, 11, 10, 20] . We argue, however, that we can estimate the polarity of a review more finely. For example, both reviews A and B in Table 1 would be classified simply as positive in binary classification. Obviously, this classification loses the information about the difference in the degree of polarity apparent in the review text.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 147,
"text": "[13,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 151,
"text": "11,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 155,
"text": "10,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 159,
"text": "20]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 277,
"end": 284,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We propose a novel type of document classification task where we evaluate reviews with scores like five stars. We call this score the sentiment polarity score (sp-score). If, for example, the range of the score is from one to five, we could give five to review A and four to review B. This task, namely, ordered multi-class classification, is considered as an extension of binary sentiment classification.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we describe a machine learning method for this task. Our system uses support vector regression (SVR) [21] to determine the sp-scores of (1,. ..,5) Review A I believe this is very good and a \"must read\" plus 5 I can't wait to read the next book in the series. Review B This book is not so bad. plus 4 You may find some interesting points in the book. reviews. This method enables us to annotate sp-scores for arbitrary reviews such as comments in bulletin board systems or blog systems. We explore several types of features beyond a bag-of-words to capture key phrases to determine sp-scores: n-grams and references (the words around the reviewed object).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 120,
"text": "[21]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 155,
"text": "(1,.",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We conducted experiments with book reviews from amazon.com each of which had a five-point scale rating along with text. We compared pairwise support vector machines (pSVMs) and SVR and found that SVR outperformed better than pSVMs by about 30% in terms of the squared error, which is close to human performance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Recent studies on sentiment classification focused on machine learning approaches. Pang [13] represents a review as a feature vector and estimates the polarity with SVM, which is almost the same method as those for topic classification [1] . This paper basically follows this work, but we extend this task to a multi-order classification task.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 92,
"text": "[13]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 239,
"text": "[1]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "There have been many attempts to analyze reviews deeply to improve accuracy. Mullen [10] used features from various information sources such as references to the \"work\" or \"artist\", which were annotated by hand, and showed that these features have the potential to improve the accuracy. We use reference features, which are the words around the fixed review target word (book), while Mullen annotated the references by hand.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 88,
"text": "[10]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Turney [20] used semantic orientation, which measures the distance from phrases to \"excellent\" or \"poor\" by using search engine results and gives the word polarity. Kudo [8] developed decision stumps, which can capture substructures embedded in text (such as word-based dependency), and suggested that subtree features are important for opinion/modality classification.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 11,
"text": "[20]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 173,
"text": "[8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Independently of and in parallel with our work, two other papers consider the degree of polarity for sentiment classification. Koppel [6] exploited a neutral class and applied a regression method as ours. Pang [12] applied a metric labeling method for the task. Our work is different from their works in several respects. We exploited square errors instead of precision for the evaluation and used five distinct scores in our experiments while Koppel used three and Pang used three/four distinct scores in their experiments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 137,
"text": "[6]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 214,
"text": "[12]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "In this section we present a novel task setting where we predict the degree of sentiment polarity of a review. We first present the definition of sp-scores and the task of assigning them to review documents. We then explain an evaluation data set. Using this data set, we examined the human performance for this task to clarify the difficulty of quantifying polarity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Analyzing Reviews with Polarity Scores",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "We extend the sentiment classification task to the more challenging task of assigning rating scores to reviews. We call this score the sp-score. Examples of sp-scores include five-star and scores out of 100. Let sp-scores take discrete values 1 in a closed interval [min...max]. The task is to assign correct sp-scores to unseen reviews as accurately as possible. Let\u0177 be the predicted sp-score and y be the sp-score assigned by the reviewer. We measure the performance of an estimator with the mean square error:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Polarity Scores",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "1 n n i=1 (\u0177 i \u2212 y i ) 2 ,",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Sentiment Polarity Scores",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "where",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Polarity Scores",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(x 1 , y 1 ), ..., (x n , y n )",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Polarity Scores",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "is the test set of reviews. This measure gives a large penalty for large mistakes, while ordered multi-class classification gives equal penalties to any types of mistakes.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Polarity Scores",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "We used book reviews on amazon.com for evaluation data 2 3 . Each review has stars assigned by the reviewer. The number of stars ranges from one to five:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 58,
"text": "2 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Data",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "one indicates the worst and five indicates the best. We converted the number of stars into sp-scores {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} 4 . Although each review may include several paragraphs, we did not exploit paragraph information. From these data, we made two data sets. The first was a set of reviews for books in the Harry Potter series (Corpus A). The second was a set of reviews for books of arbitrary kinds (Corpus B). It was easier to predict sp-scores for Corpus A than Corpus B because Corpus A books have a smaller vocabulary and each review was about twice as large. To create a data set with a uniform score distribution (the effect of skewed class distributions is out of the scope of this paper), we selected 330 reviews per sp-score for Corpus A and 280 reviews per sp-score for Corpus B 5 . Table 2 shows the number of words and sentences in the corpora. There is no significant difference in the average number of words/sentences among different sp-scores. ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 118,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 791,
"end": 798,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Evaluation Data",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "We treat the sp-scores assigned by the reviewers as correct answers. However, the content of a review and its sp-score may not be related. Moreover, sp-scores may vary depending on the reviewers. We examined the universality of the sp-score.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preliminary Experiments: Human Performance for Assigning Sp-scores",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "We asked two researchers of computational linguistics independently to assign an sp-score to each review from Corpus A. We first had them learn the relationship between reviews and sp-scores using 20 reviews. We then gave them 100 reviews with uniform sp-score distribution as test data. Table 3 shows the results in terms of the square error. The Random row shows the performance achieved by random assignment, and the All3 row shows the performance achieved by assigning 3 to all the reviews. These results suggest that sp-scores would be estimated with 0.78 square error from only the contents of reviews. Table 4 shows the distribution of the estimated sp-scores and correct spscores. In the table we can observe the difficulty of this task: the precise quantification of sp-scores. For example, human B tended to overestimate the sp-score as 1 or 5. We should note that if we consider this task as binary classification by treating the reviews whose sp-scores are 4 and 5 as positive examples and those with 1 and 2 as negative examples (ignoring the reviews whose spscores are 3), the classification precisions by humans A and B are 95% and 96% respectively.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 288,
"end": 295,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 616,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Preliminary Experiments: Human Performance for Assigning Sp-scores",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "This section describes a machine learning approach to predict the sp-scores of review documents. Our method consists of the following two steps: extraction of feature vectors from reviews and estimation of sp-scores by the feature vectors. The first step basically uses existing techniques for document classification. On the other hand, the prediction of sp-scores is different from previous studies because we consider ordered multi-class classification, that is, each sp-score has its own class and the classes are ordered. Unlike usual multi-class classification, large mistakes in terms of the order should have large penalties. In this paper, we discuss two methods of estimating sp-scores: pSVMs and SVR.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Assigning Sp-scores to Reviews",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "We represent a review as a feature vector. Although this representation ignores the syntactic structure, word positions, and the order of words, it is known to work reasonably well for many tasks such as information retrieval and document classification. We use binary, tf, and tf-idf as feature weighting methods [15] . The feature vectors are normalized to have L 2 norm 1.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 314,
"end": 318,
"text": "[15]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Review Representation",
"sec_num": "4.1"
},
{
"text": "Support vector regression (SVR) is a method of regression that shares the underlying idea with SVM [3, 16] . SVR predicts the sp-score of a review by the following regression:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 102,
"text": "[3,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 106,
"text": "16]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Support Vector Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "f : R n \u2192 R, y = f (x) = w \u2022 x + b.",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "Support Vector Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "SVR uses an -insensitive loss function. This loss function means that all errors inside the cube are ignored. This allows SVR to use few support vectors and gives generalization ability. Given a training set, (x 1 , y 1 ), ...., (x n , y n ), parameters w and b are determined by:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Support Vector Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "minimize 1 2 w \u2022 w + C n i=1 (\u03be i + \u03be * i ) subject to ( w \u2022 x i + b) \u2212 y i \u2264 + \u03be i y i \u2212 ( w \u2022 x i + b) \u2264 + \u03be * i \u03be ( * ) i \u2265 0 i = 1, ..., n.",
"eq_num": "(3)"
}
],
"section": "Support Vector Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "The factor C > 0 is a parameter that controls the trade-off between training error minimization and margin maximization. The loss in training data increases as C becomes smaller, and the generalization is lost as C becomes larger. Moreover, we can apply a kernel-trick to SVR as in the case with SVMs by using a kernel function.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Support Vector Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "This approach captures the order of classes and does not suffer from data sparseness. We could use conventional linear regression instead of SVR [4] . But we use SVR because it can exploit the kernel-trick and avoid over-training. Another good characteristic of SVR is that we can identify the features contributing to determining the sp-scores by examining the coefficients (w in (2)), while pSVMs does not give such information because multiple classifiers are involved in determining final results. A problem in this approach is that SVR cannot learn non-linear regression. For example, when given training data are (x = 1, y = 1), (x = 2, y = 2), (x = 3, y = 8), SVR cannot perform regression correctly without adjusting the feature values.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 148,
"text": "[4]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Support Vector Regression",
"sec_num": "4.2"
},
{
"text": "We apply a multi-class classification approach to estimating sp-scores. pSVMs [7] considers each sp-score as a unique class and ignores the order among the classes. Given reviews with sp-scores {1, 2, .., m}, we construct m \u2022 (m \u2212 1)/2 SVM classifiers for all the pairs of the possible values of sp-scores. The classifier for a sp-score pair (avsb) assigns the sp-score to a review with a or b. The class label of a document is determined by majority voting of the classifiers. Ties in the voting are broken by choosing the class that is closest to the neutral sp-score (i.e, (1 + m)/2).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 81,
"text": "[7]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pairwise Support Vector Machines",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "This approach ignores the fact that sp-scores are ordered, which causes the following two problems. First, it allows large mistakes. Second, when the number of possible values of the sp-score is large (e.g, n > 100), this approach suffers from the data sparseness problem. Because pSVMs cannot employ examples that have close sp-scores (e.g, sp-score = 50) for the classification of other sp-scores (e.g, the classifier for a sp-score pair (51vs100)).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Pairwise Support Vector Machines",
"sec_num": "4.3"
},
{
"text": "Previous studies [9, 2] suggested that complex features do not work as expected because data become sparse when such features are used and a bag-of-words words in a sentence including \"book\" (I) (can't) ... (series) aroundbook words near \"book\" within two words. (the) (next) (in) (the) approach is enough to capture the information in most reviews. Nevertheless, we observed that reviews include many chunks of words such as \"very good\" or \"must buy\" that are useful for estimating the degree of polarity. We confirmed this observation by using n-grams. Since the words around the review target might be expected to influence the whole sp-score more than other words, we use these words as features. We call these features reference. We assume the review target is only the word \"book\", and we use \"inbook\" and \"aroundbook\" features. The \"inbook\" features are the words appear in the sentences which include the word \"book\". The \"around book\" are the words around the word \"book\" within two words. Table 5 summarizes the feature list for the experiments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 20,
"text": "[9,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 23,
"text": "2]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1006,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features Beyond Bag-of-Words",
"sec_num": "4.4"
},
{
"text": "We performed two series of experiments. First, we compared pSVMs and SVR. Second, we examined the performance of various features and weighting methods.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We used Corpus A/B introduced in Sec. 3.2 for experiment data. We removed all HTML tags and punctuation marks beforehand. We also applied the Porter stemming method [14] to the reviews.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 169,
"text": "[14]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We divided these data into ten disjoint subsets, maintaining the uniform class distribution. All the results reported below are the average of ten-fold crossvalidation. In SVMs and SVR, we used SVMlight 6 with the quadratic polynomial kernel K(x, z) = ( x \u2022 z + 1) 2 and set the control parameter C to 100 in all the experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We compared pSVMs and SVR to see differences in the properties of the regression approach compared with those of the classification approach. Both pSVMs and SVR used unigram/tf-idf to represent reviews. Table 6 shows the square error results for SVM, SVR and a simple regression (least square error) method for Corpus A/B. These results indicate that SVR outperformed SVM in terms of the square error and suggests that regression methods avoid large mistakes by taking account of the fact that sp-scores are ordered, while pSVMs does not. We also note that the result of a simple regression method is close to the result of SVR with a linear kernel. Figure 1 shows the distribution of estimation results for humans (top left: human 1, top right: human 2), pSVMs (below left), and SVR (below right). The horizontal axis shows the estimated sp-scores and the vertical axis shows the correct sp-scores. Color density indicates the number of reviews. These figures suggest that pSVMs and SVR could capture the gradualness of sp-scores better than humans could. They also show that pSVMs cannot predict neutral sp-scores well, while SVR can do so well.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 203,
"end": 210,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": "TABREF4"
},
{
"start": 650,
"end": 658,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison of pSVMs and SVR",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "We compared the different features presented in Section 4.4 and feature weighting methods. First we compared different weighting methods. We used only unigram features for this comparison. We then compared different features. We used only tf-idf weighting methods for this comparison. Table 7 summarizes the comparison results of different feature weighting methods. The results show that tf-idf performed well on both test corpora. We should note that simple representation methods, such as binary or tf, give comparable results to tf-idf, which indicates that we can add more complex features without considering the scale of feature values. For example, when we add word-based dependency features, we have some difficulty in adjusting these feature values to those of unigrams. But we could use these features together in binary weighting methods. Table 8 summarizes the comparison results for different features. For Corpus A, unigram + bigram and unigram + trigram achieved high performance. The performance of unigram + inbook was not good, which is contrary to our intuition that the words that appear around the target object are more important than others. For Corpus B, the results was different, that is, n-gram features could not predict the sp-scores well. This is because the variety of words/phrases was much larger than in Corpus A and n-gram features may have suffered from the data sparseness problem. We should note that these feature settings are too simple, and we cannot accept the result of reference or target object (inbook /aroundbook ) directly.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 292,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 858,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison of Different Features",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "Note that the data used in the preliminary experiments described in Section 3.3 are a part of Corpus A. Therefore we can compare the results for humans with those for Corpus A in this experiment. The best result by the machine learning approach (0.89) was close to the human results (0.78).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison of Different Features",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "To analyze the influence of n-gram features, we used the linear kernel k(x, z):= x \u2022 z in SVR training. We used tf-idf as feature weighting. We then examined each coefficient of regression. Since we used the linear kernel, the coefficient value of SVR showed the polarity of a single feature, that is, this value expressed how much the occurrence of a feature affected the sp-score. Tables 9 shows the coefficients resulting from the training of SVR. These results show that neutral polarity words themselves, such as \"all\" and \"age\", will affect the overall sp-scores of reviews with other neutral polarity words, such as, \"all ag (age)\", \"can't wait\", \"on (one) star\", and \"not interest\".",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 383,
"end": 391,
"text": "Tables 9",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Comparison of Different Features",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "We generated learning curves to examine the effect of the size of training data on the performance. Figure 2 shows the results of a classification task using unigram /tf-idf to represent reviews. The results suggest that the performance can still be improved by increasing the training data. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 108,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Learning Curve",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we described a novel task setting in which we predicted sp-scores -degree of polarity -of reviews. We proposed a machine learning method using SVR to predict sp-scores. We compared two methods for estimating sp-scores: pSVMs and SVR. Experimental results with book reviews showed that SVR performed better in terms of the square error than pSVMs by about 30%. This result agrees with our intuition that pSVMs does not consider the order of sp-scores, while SVR captures the order of sp-scores and avoids high penalty mistakes. With SVR, spscores can be estimated with a square error of 0.89, which is very close to the square error achieved by human (0.78).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We examined the effectiveness of features beyond a bag-of-words and reference features (the words around the reviewed objects.) The results suggest that n-gram features and reference features contribute to improve the accuracy.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "As the next step in our research, we plan to exploit parsing results such as predicate argument structures for detecting precise reference information. We will also capture other types of polarity than attitude, such as modality and writing position [8] , and we will consider estimating these types of polarity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 250,
"end": 253,
"text": "[8]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We plan to develop a classifier specialized for ordered multi-class classification using recent studies on machine learning for structured output space [19, 18] or ordinal regression [5] because our experiments suggest that both pSVMs and SVR have advantages and disadvantages. We will develop a more efficient classifier that outperforms pSVMs and SVR by combining these ideas.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 156,
"text": "[19,",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 160,
"text": "18]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 186,
"text": "[5]",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusion",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "R. Dale et al. (Eds.): IJCNLP 2005, LNAI 3651, pp. 314-325, 2005. c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We could allow sp-scores to have continuous values. However, in this paper we assume sp-scores take only discrete values since the evaluation data set was annotated by only discrete values. 2 http://www.amazon.com3 These data were gathered from google cache using google API.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "One must be aware that different scales may reflect the different reactions than just scales as Keller indicated[17].5 We actually corrected 25000 reviews. However, we used only 2900 reviews since the number of reviews with 1 star is very small. We examined the effect of the number of training data is discussed in 5.3.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "http://svmlight.joachims.org/",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Learning to Classify Text Using Support Vector Machines",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T . Joachims. Learning to Classify Text Using Support Vector Machines. Kluwer, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Automated learning of decision rules for text categorization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Apte",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Damerau",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weiss",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Information Systems",
"volume": "12",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "233--251",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "C. Apte, F. Damerau, and S. Weiss. Automated learning of decision rules for text categorization. Information Systems, 12(3):233-251, 1994.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and other Kernel-based Learning Methods",
"authors": [
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cristianini",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Taylor",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "N. Cristianini and J. S. Taylor. An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and other Kernel-based Learning Methods. Cambridge University Press, 2000.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "The Elements of Statistical Learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hastie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tibshirani",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Friedman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2001.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Large margin rank boundaries for ordinal regression",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ralf",
"middle": [],
"last": "Herbrich",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Thore",
"middle": [],
"last": "Graepel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Klaus",
"middle": [],
"last": "Obermayer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Advances in Large Margin Classifiers",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "115--132",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ralf Herbrich, Thore Graepel, and Klaus Obermayer. Large margin rank bound- aries for ordinal regression. In Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, pages 115-132. MIT press, 2000.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "The importance of neutral examples for learning sentiment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Moshe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koppel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jonathan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Workshop on the Analysis of Informal and Formal Information Exchange during Negotiations (FINEXIN)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Moshe Koppel and Jonathan Schler. The importance of neutral examples for learn- ing sentiment. In In Workshop on the Analysis of Informal and Formal Information Exchange during Negotiations (FINEXIN), 2005.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Pairwise Classification and Support Vector Machines Methods",
"authors": [
{
"first": "U",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kresel",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "U. Kresel. Pairwise Classification and Support Vector Machines Methods. MIT Press, 1999.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "A boosting algorithm for classification of semistructured text",
"authors": [
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kudo",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Matsumoto",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "301--308",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "T. Kudo and Y. Matsumoto. A boosting algorithm for classification of semi- structured text. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 301-308, 2004.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "An evaluation of phrasal and clustered representations on a text categorization task",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lewis",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "Proceedings of SIGIR-92, 15th ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "37--50",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "D. Lewis. An evaluation of phrasal and clustered representations on a text cate- gorization task. In Proceedings of SIGIR-92, 15th ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 37-50, 1992.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Sentiment analysis using Support Vector Machines with diverse information sources",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mullen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "N",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collier",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Mullen and N. Collier. Sentiment analysis using Support Vector Machines with diverse information sources. In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2004.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "271--278",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Pang and L. Lee. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 271-278, 2004.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 43nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Pang and L. Lee. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In Proceedings of the 43nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2005.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Thumbs up? sentiment classification using machine learning techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vaithyanathan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "79--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Pang, L. Lee, and S. Vaithyanathan. Thumbs up? sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 79-86, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "An algorithm for suffix stripping",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [
"F"
],
"last": "Porter",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1980,
"venue": "program. Program",
"volume": "14",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "130--137",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "M.F. Porter. An algorithm for suffix stripping, program. Program, 14(3):130-137, 1980.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Machine learning in automated text categorization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "F",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sebastiani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "ACM Computing Surveys",
"volume": "34",
"issue": "1",
"pages": "1--47",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "F. Sebastiani. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1):1-47, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "A tutorial on Support Vector Regression",
"authors": [
{
"first": "A",
"middle": [],
"last": "Smola",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "A. Smola and B. Sch. A tutorial on Support Vector Regression. Technical report, NeuroCOLT2 Technical Report NC2-TR-1998-030, 1998.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Gradience in linguistic data",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Antonella",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sorace",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Frank",
"middle": [],
"last": "Keller",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Lingua",
"volume": "115",
"issue": "11",
"pages": "1497--1524",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Antonella Sorace and Frank Keller. Gradience in linguistic data. Lingua, 115(11):1497-1524, 2005.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Learning Structured Prediction Models: A Large Margin Approach",
"authors": [
{
"first": "B",
"middle": [],
"last": "Taskar",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "B. Taskar. Learning Structured Prediction Models: A Large Margin Approach. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 2004.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Support vector machine learning for interdependent and structured output spaces",
"authors": [
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tsochantaridis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hofmann",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "T",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Y",
"middle": [],
"last": "Altun",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference (ICML)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "I. Tsochantaridis, T. Hofmann, T. Joachims, and Y. Altun. Support vector machine learning for interdependent and structured output spaces. In Machine Learning, Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Conference (ICML), 2004.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Thumbs up or thumbs down? semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [
"D"
],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--424",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "P. D. Turney. Thumbs up or thumbs down? semantic orientation applied to un- supervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 417-424, 2002.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory",
"authors": [
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vapnik",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1995,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "V. Vapnik. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer, 1995.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "Results of sp-score estimation: Human 1 (left) and Human 2",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "Distribution of estimation results. Color density indicates the number of reviews. Top left: Human A, top right: Human B, below left: pSVMs, below right: SVR.",
"num": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null,
"text": "Learning curve for our task setting for Corpus A and Corpus B. We used SVR as the classifier and unigram/tf-idf to represent of reviews.",
"num": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Examples of book reviewsExample of Review binary sp-score",
"html": null,
"content": "<table/>"
},
"TABREF1": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Corpus A: reviews for Harry Potter series book. Corpus B: reviews for all kinds of books. The column of word shows the average number of words in a review, and the column of sentences shows the average number of sentences in a review.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>sp-score</td><td>Corpus A</td><td/><td>Corpus B</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">review words sentences review words sentences</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>330 160.0</td><td>9.1</td><td>250 91.9</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>330 196.0</td><td>11.0</td><td>250 105.2</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>330 169.1</td><td>9.2</td><td>250 118.6</td><td>6.0</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>330 150.2</td><td>8.6</td><td>250 123.2</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>330 153.8</td><td>8.9</td><td>250 124.8</td><td>6.1</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF2": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Human performance of sp-score estimation. Test data: 100 reviews of Corpus A with 1,2,3,4,5 sp-score.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Square error</td></tr><tr><td>Human 1</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Human 2</td><td>0.79</td></tr><tr><td>Human average</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>cf. Random</td><td>3.20</td></tr><tr><td>All3</td><td>2.00</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF3": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Feature list for experiments",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Features</td><td>Description</td><td>Example in Fig.1 review 1</td></tr><tr><td>unigram</td><td>single word</td><td>(I) (believe) .. (series)</td></tr><tr><td>bigram</td><td>pair of two adjacent words</td><td>(I believe) ... (the series)</td></tr><tr><td>trigram</td><td>adjacent three words</td><td>(I believe this) ... (in the series)</td></tr><tr><td>inbook</td><td/><td/></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF4": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Comparison of multi-class SVM and SVR. Both use unigram/tf-idf.",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Square error</td></tr><tr><td>Methods</td><td colspan=\"2\">Corpus A Corpus B</td></tr><tr><td>pSVMs</td><td>1.32</td><td>2.13</td></tr><tr><td>simple regression</td><td>1.05</td><td>1.49</td></tr><tr><td>SVR (linear kernel)</td><td>1.01</td><td>1.46</td></tr><tr><td>SVR (polynomial kernel ( x \u2022 z + 1) 2 )</td><td>0.94</td><td>1.38</td></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF5": {
"num": null,
"type_str": "table",
"text": "Comparison results of different feature weighting methods. We used unigrams as features of reviews. Comparison results of different features. For comparison of different features we tf-idf as weighting methods. List of bigram features that have ten best/worst polarity values estimated by SVR in Corpus A/B. The column of pol expresses the estimated sp-score of a feature, i.e., only this feature is fired in a feature vector. (word stemming was applied)",
"html": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Square error</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Weighting methods (unigram) Corpus A Corpus B</td></tr><tr><td>tf</td><td/><td>1.03</td><td>1.49</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">tf-idf</td><td>0.94</td><td>1.38</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">binary</td><td>1.04</td><td>1.47</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Square error</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Feature (tf-idf)</td><td colspan=\"2\">Corpus A Corpus B</td></tr><tr><td/><td>unigram (baseline)</td><td>0.94</td><td>1.38</td></tr><tr><td/><td>unigram + bigram</td><td>0.89</td><td>1.41</td></tr><tr><td/><td>unigram + trigram</td><td>0.90</td><td>1.42</td></tr><tr><td/><td>unigram + inbook</td><td>0.97</td><td>1.36</td></tr><tr><td/><td>unigram + aroundbook</td><td>0.93</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td>Corpus A (best)</td><td>Corpus B (best)</td><td colspan=\"2\">Corpus A (worst) Corpus B (worst)</td></tr><tr><td>pol bigram</td><td>pol bigram</td><td>pol bigram</td><td>pol bigram</td></tr><tr><td>1.73 best book</td><td>1.64 the best</td><td>-1.61 at all</td><td>-1.19 veri disappoint</td></tr><tr><td>1.69 is a</td><td>1.60 read it</td><td>-1.50 wast of</td><td>-1.13 wast of</td></tr><tr><td>1.49 read it</td><td>1.37 a great</td><td colspan=\"2\">-1.38 potter book -0.98 the worst</td></tr><tr><td>1.44 all ag</td><td>1.34 on of</td><td>-1.36 out of</td><td>-0.97 is veri</td></tr><tr><td>1.30 can't wait</td><td>1.31 fast food</td><td colspan=\"2\">-1.28 not interest -0.96 ! !</td></tr><tr><td>1.20 it is</td><td>1.22 harri potter</td><td>-1.18 on star</td><td>-0.85 i am</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">1.14 the sorcer's 1.19 highli recommend</td><td>-1.14 the worst</td><td>-0.81 the exampl</td></tr><tr><td>1.14 great !</td><td>1.14 an excel</td><td>-1.13 first four</td><td>-0.79 bui it</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">1.13 sorcer's stone 1.12 to read</td><td>-1.11 a wast</td><td>-0.76 veri littl</td></tr><tr><td>1.11 come out</td><td>1.01 in the</td><td>-1.08 no on</td><td>-0.74 onli to</td></tr></table>"
}
}
}
} |