SENTIMENT ANALYSIS

SENTIWORDNET AND POLARITY CLASSIFICATION

Roseline Antai

Sentiment Analysis

Introduction Objectivity and Subjectivity detection Opinion extraction Polarity classification Approaches to Sentiment Analysis Issues in Sentiment Analysis SentiWordNet My Work References

Sentiment Analysis-Introduction

Sentiment Analysis- “What’s the Point?”

Introduction

People these days place so much value on what others think, and this shapes their decisions.

In everyday life, when it comes to making decisions, people yearn to know the feelings, and the experiences of others, before making up their minds.

People also consult political discussion forums to aid in making up their minds on the votes to cast, read consumer reports before buying appliances, ask the opinions of friends before going to a certain restaurant.

The World Wide Web has now created an avenue for the opinions of others to be expressed freely, and accessed by others.

Intro...

Sentiment analysis has been referred to as: Subjectivity analysis Opinion mining Appraisal extraction Some connections to affective computing

Intro...

Sentiment analysis is an area which tries to determine the mindset of an author, through a body of text.

Sentiment analysis or statement polarity classification has to do with determining the relative positivity or negativity of a document, web page or selection of text. This task is a difficult one because of the variations and complexities that exist in language expressions.

Sentiment analysis has also been defined as the task of identifying positive and negative opinions, emotions and evaluations.

Intro...

The important steps in sentiment analysis

Objectivity/Subjectivity detection in text Opinion extraction Polarity classification

Objectivity and Subjectivity detection

While some researchers have used algorithms for detecting subjective text, others have used syntactic rules.

Morinaga et al (2002), on the basis of human-test samples generated in advance syntactic and linguistic rules to determine if any given statement is an opinion or not. Statements are collected from the web about the target products whose reputations they are working on, and then passed over these rules, and opinions are extracted.

Opinion Extraction

Sentiment extraction from investor message boards, using five different algorithms, (Naïve classifier, vector- distance classifier, discriminant-based classifier, adjective-adverb classifier and Bayesian classifiers), to classify messages into three types, Optimistic, Pessimistic, and neutral, where the neutral statements are the objective statements which do not fall in either class.

PMI-IR algorithm used to extract two consecutive words, where one was an adjective or adverb, while the second provided context. This is due to the fact that an adjective may have a different orientation, depending on the review.

An example is the adjective “unpredictable”, which in an automotive review would have a negative orientation, if used in a phrase like “unpredictable steering”, while in a movie review, it would have a positive orientation if used in a phrase such as “unpredictable plot” .

Polarity classification

The first step in emotion classification research is the question, “Which emotions should be addressed?” (Danisman and Alpcokak, 2008).

In the lexical approach, a dictionary or lexicon of pre-tagged words is utilized. Each present word is compared against the dictionary. A word’s polarity value is added to the ‘total polarity score’ if the word is present in the dictionary. If the polarity score of a text is positive, the text is classified as positive. Otherwise, it is classified as negative.

For the machine learning approach, a series of feature vectors are chosen and a collection of tagged corpora are provided for training a ‘classifier’, and this can then be applied to an untagged corpus of text.

Machine Learning Approach

The machine learning approach utilizes machine learning algorithms such as: Naïve Bayes Maximum entropy SVM/SVM Light ADTree (Alternating Decision Tree)

The Lexical approach makes use of lexicons like the GI lexicon, WordNet, ConceptNet and SentiWordNet.

Application Domains

Reviews Political blogs News Articles/Editorials Business message boards

Issues in Sentiment Analysis Negations Thwarted expectations Domain transferability

Negations

In using the Naïve classifier in their wok, Das and Chen (2007) handled negation by matching each lexical entry by a corresponding counterpart with a negation sign. Each message before it was processed, was treated by a parsing algorithm which negates words if the sentence context required it. As an example, a sentence which read “this stock is not good,”, would have the word good, replaced by “good__n”, to simplify a negation .

Following their example , (Pang and Lee, 2002) added the tag ‘NOT_ ‘ to every word between a negation word, like “not”, “isn’t”, “didn’t”, etc, and the first punctuation mark following the negation word.

Negations Some researchers, simply represent the negation with

another word. They did this, by forming a new word using the negated verb. For example, given the sentence “I don’t enjoy it”, they first replaced the shortened form by the full version, - “I do not enjoy it”, and then finally, as “I do NOTenjoy it.” Hence, the word “enjoy” is used to form a new word “NOTenjoy”, and this way, they were able to discriminate the word “enjoy”, which has a positive meaning, from the word “NOTenjoy”, which has a negative meaning.

(Denecke, 2009) deals with negation by first scanning a text, and identifying negated terms like “Not”, ”no” and “nothing” . If one of these negated terms is found within two terms of an affective word, it is assumed the word’s polarity is effectively reversed. Hence, any positive word around a negative word is ranked as negative, and any negative word around a negated term is ranked as positive.

Thwarted Expectations The term thwarted expressions has been defined

as expressions which contain a number of words having a polarity which is opposite to the polarity of the expression itself (Annett and Kondrack, 2008).

Taking the review:“”This film should be brilliant. It sounds like

a great plot, the actors are first grade, and the supporting cast is good as well, and Stallone is attempting to deliver a good performance.

However, it can’t hold up””

Domain transferability The differences which exist in product features and widely

varying domains makes the use of automatic sentiment classification across a wide range of domains quite difficult to achieve (Blitzer and Pereira, 2007).

Take a scenario where developers annotate corpora for a small number of domains, then train these corpora, and subsequently apply them to other similar corpora.

This raises two questions:

one about the accuracy of the trained classifier, when the test data’sdistribution is significantly different from the training distribution.

second, which notion of domain similarity should be used to select domains to annotate, which would serve as good proxies for other domains.

Denecke (2009) also reports on classification across domains using SentiWordNet, and concludes from results obtained that a classifier trained on one domain is not transferable to another domain without a significant drop in accuracy.

This may be due to the linguistic characteristics of different domains.

Also, average SentiWordNet scores per word class vary for different domains.

A classifier trained on a mixture of texts of different domains is better suited.

SentiWordNet

SentiWordNet provides for each synset of WordNet a triple of polarity scores (positivity, negativity and objectivity) whose values sum up to 1. For example the triple 0, 1, 0 (positivity, negativity, objectivity) is assigned to the synset of the term bad (Denecke,2009).

It is a lexical resource in which each synset of WordNet is associated with three numerical scores, ‘obj’,’neg’ and ‘pos’. Each of the scores ranges from ‘0’ to ‘1’, and their sum equals ‘1’ (Saggion and Funk, 2010).

The score triplet is derived by combining the results which are produced by a committee of eight ternary classifiers, all characterised by similar accuracy levels.

SentiWordNet has been created automatically by means of a combination of linguistic and statistic classifiers. Like WordNet 2.0 from which it has been derived, SentiWordNet consists of around 207000 word-sense pairs or 117660 synsets. It provides entries for nouns (71%), verbs (12%), adjectives (14%) and adverbs (3%).

SentiWordNet Scores

SentiWordNet scores have been combined in different ways to classify text into positive or negative polarities. Two of these are:

Denecke (2009) whose work was on testing the suitability of polarity scores for sentiment classification of documents in different domains, and analyzing accuracies in cross domain settings.

Six different domains were used, four being Amazon product reviews (books, DVDs, electronics and kitchen equipments), one on drugs, and one news articles.

The word is stemmed and looked up in SentiWordNet. As many entries may exist for a word, the scores for

positivity, negativity and objectivity of the entries are averaged.

The ambiguity which arises from a word having very different values from different senses is not addressed in this work. Eg: ‘bad’, which in one sense has pos=0,neg=1 and obj=0, and in another sense, has pos=0.625, neg = 0.125, and obj=0.25.

Instead, a simpler method of calculating the average of the scores of all senses is utilized.

The polarity score triple is used to determine the semantic orientation of the word.

If the positive value is larger, the word is positive, and same goes for the negative, where both are equal, the word is ignored.

An average polarity triple for the full document is determined by summing up the polarity score triples of all opinionated words.

If the number of positive words is larger than the number of negative words, the document is positive. Also, same goes for negative.

If there are equal numbers of positive, as well as negative words, the average polarity score is checked if the positive value is larger than the negative, then the document is classified positive, and vice versa.

Saggion and Funk(2010) use an English data source and an Italian data source.

Again WSD was not carried out. For each entry of the word in

SentiWordNet, the number of times the word is more positive than negative (positive>negative), the number of times it is more negative than positive, and the total number of entries in SentiWordNet are computed.

In each sentence, the number of words more positive than negative is calculated, and same goes for the more negative words.

The sentiment score for the sentence is positive if most words in the sentence are positive, and negative, if there are more negative words, and neutral otherwise.

The paper also reports using summarization as a pre-process before classification, and this does lead to a statistically significant increase in classification accuracy.

DEMOhttp://sentiwordnet.isti.cnr.it/

My Work

Generate a simple baseline system Incorporate WSD in my work Will summarization lead to better

results? What is the document space was

reduced ? Will this lead to better results? How do I make it domain adaptable?

References Morinaga, S., Yamanishi, K., Tateishi, K., and Fukushima, T. (2002). Mining product reputations on the

web. Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD international Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.

Blitzer, J., Dredze, M., & Pereira, F. (2007). Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. Annual Meeting Association For Computational Linguistics (Vol. 45, pp. 440-447).Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P07/P07-1056.pdf

Michelle Annett and GrzegorzKondrak. 2008. A comparison of sentiment analysis techniques: polarizing movie blogs. In Proceedings of the Canadian Society for computational studies of intelligence, 21st conference on Advances in artificial intelligence (Canadian AI'08), Sabine Bergler (Ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 25-35.

Das, S. and M. Chen 2007. Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment Extraction from Small Talk on the Web. Management Science 53(9): 1375-1388.

Mejova,Y.(2009). Sentiment Analysis: An Overview. Computer Science department, University of Iowa. www.cs.uiowa.edu/~ymejoya/publications/comps YelenaMejova.pdf

Thumbs up? Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques. Bo Pang, Lillian Lee, and ShivakumarVaithyanathan. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 79--86, 2002.

Turney, P 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL '02). Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 417-424. DOI=10.3115/1073083.1073153 http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073153

References

Danisman, T and Alpkocak, A. “Feeler: Emotion classification of text using vector space model,” in AISB 2008 Convention, Communication, Interaction and Social Intelligence, vol. vol. 2, Aberdeen, UK, April 2008.

Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., and Hoffmann, P. (2009). Recognizing contextual polarity: an exploration of features for phrase-level sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics, 35(5):399–433.

Denecke , K. Are SentiWordNet Scores suited fro multi-domain sentiment classification? ICDM, 2009.

Saggion, H. and Frank, A. Interpreting SentiWordNet for opinion classification. In proceedings of LREC, 2010.

Esuli, A. , Baccianella, S. and Sebastiani, F. SentiWordNEt 3.0: An Enhanced Lexical Resource for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. In proceedings of the seventh conference on International Language resources and Evaluation , 2010.

Thank you!

Questions?