File size: 225,203 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 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1561 1562 1563 1564 1565 1566 1567 1568 1569 1570 1571 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1593 1594 1595 1596 1597 1598 1599 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 2113 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 2164 2165 2166 2167 2168 2169 2170 2171 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2179 2180 2181 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 2192 2193 2194 2195 2196 2197 2198 2199 2200 2201 2202 2203 2204 2205 2206 2207 2208 2209 2210 2211 2212 2213 2214 2215 2216 2217 2218 2219 2220 2221 2222 2223 2224 2225 2226 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 2232 2233 2234 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 2285 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337 2338 2339 2340 2341 2342 2343 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348 2349 2350 2351 2352 2353 2354 2355 2356 2357 2358 2359 2360 2361 2362 2363 2364 2365 2366 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 2381 2382 2383 2384 2385 2386 2387 2388 2389 2390 2391 2392 2393 2394 2395 2396 2397 2398 2399 2400 2401 2402 2403 2404 2405 2406 2407 2408 2409 2410 2411 2412 2413 2414 2415 2416 2417 2418 2419 2420 2421 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 2431 2432 2433 2434 2435 2436 2437 2438 2439 2440 2441 2442 2443 2444 2445 2446 2447 2448 2449 2450 2451 2452 2453 2454 2455 2456 2457 2458 2459 2460 2461 2462 2463 2464 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2472 2473 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2480 2481 2482 2483 2484 2485 2486 2487 2488 2489 2490 2491 2492 2493 2494 2495 2496 2497 2498 2499 2500 2501 2502 2503 2504 2505 2506 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2512 2513 2514 2515 2516 2517 2518 2519 2520 2521 2522 2523 2524 2525 2526 2527 2528 2529 2530 2531 2532 2533 2534 2535 2536 2537 2538 2539 2540 2541 2542 2543 2544 2545 2546 2547 2548 2549 2550 2551 2552 2553 2554 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2561 2562 2563 2564 2565 2566 2567 2568 2569 2570 2571 2572 2573 2574 2575 2576 2577 2578 2579 2580 2581 2582 2583 2584 2585 2586 2587 2588 2589 2590 2591 2592 2593 2594 2595 2596 2597 2598 2599 2600 2601 2602 2603 2604 2605 2606 2607 2608 2609 2610 2611 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2617 2618 2619 2620 2621 2622 2623 2624 2625 2626 2627 2628 2629 2630 2631 2632 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2638 2639 2640 2641 2642 2643 2644 2645 2646 2647 2648 2649 2650 2651 2652 2653 2654 2655 2656 2657 2658 2659 2660 2661 2662 2663 2664 2665 2666 2667 2668 2669 2670 2671 2672 2673 2674 2675 2676 2677 2678 2679 2680 2681 2682 2683 2684 2685 2686 2687 2688 2689 2690 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2696 2697 2698 2699 2700 2701 2702 2703 2704 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2711 2712 2713 2714 2715 2716 2717 2718 2719 2720 2721 2722 2723 2724 2725 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2731 2732 2733 2734 2735 2736 2737 2738 2739 2740 2741 2742 2743 2744 2745 2746 2747 2748 2749 2750 2751 2752 2753 2754 2755 2756 2757 2758 2759 2760 2761 2762 2763 2764 2765 2766 2767 2768 2769 2770 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 2791 2792 2793 2794 2795 2796 2797 2798 2799 2800 2801 2802 2803 2804 2805 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816 2817 2818 2819 2820 2821 2822 2823 2824 2825 2826 2827 2828 2829 2830 2831 2832 2833 2834 2835 2836 2837 2838 2839 2840 2841 2842 2843 2844 2845 2846 2847 2848 2849 2850 2851 2852 2853 2854 2855 2856 2857 2858 2859 2860 2861 2862 2863 2864 2865 2866 2867 2868 2869 2870 2871 2872 2873 2874 2875 2876 2877 2878 2879 2880 2881 2882 2883 2884 2885 2886 2887 2888 2889 2890 2891 2892 2893 2894 2895 2896 2897 2898 2899 2900 2901 2902 2903 2904 2905 2906 2907 2908 2909 2910 2911 2912 2913 2914 2915 2916 2917 2918 2919 2920 2921 2922 2923 2924 2925 2926 2927 2928 2929 2930 2931 2932 2933 2934 2935 2936 2937 2938 2939 2940 2941 2942 2943 2944 2945 2946 2947 2948 2949 2950 2951 2952 2953 2954 2955 2956 2957 2958 2959 2960 2961 2962 2963 2964 2965 2966 2967 2968 2969 2970 2971 2972 2973 2974 2975 2976 2977 2978 2979 2980 2981 2982 2983 2984 2985 2986 2987 2988 2989 2990 2991 2992 2993 2994 2995 2996 2997 2998 2999 3000 3001 3002 3003 3004 3005 3006 3007 3008 3009 3010 3011 3012 3013 3014 3015 3016 3017 3018 3019 3020 3021 3022 3023 3024 3025 3026 3027 3028 3029 3030 3031 3032 3033 3034 3035 3036 3037 3038 3039 3040 3041 3042 3043 3044 3045 3046 3047 3048 3049 3050 3051 3052 3053 3054 3055 3056 3057 3058 3059 3060 3061 3062 3063 3064 3065 3066 3067 3068 3069 3070 3071 3072 3073 3074 3075 3076 3077 3078 3079 3080 3081 3082 3083 3084 3085 3086 3087 3088 3089 3090 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 3101 3102 3103 3104 3105 3106 3107 3108 3109 3110 3111 3112 3113 3114 3115 3116 3117 3118 3119 3120 3121 3122 3123 3124 3125 3126 3127 3128 3129 3130 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 3141 3142 3143 3144 3145 3146 3147 3148 3149 3150 3151 3152 3153 3154 3155 3156 3157 3158 3159 3160 3161 3162 3163 3164 3165 3166 3167 3168 3169 3170 3171 3172 3173 3174 3175 3176 3177 3178 3179 3180 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 3191 3192 3193 3194 3195 3196 3197 3198 3199 3200 3201 3202 3203 3204 3205 3206 3207 3208 3209 3210 3211 3212 3213 3214 3215 3216 3217 3218 3219 3220 3221 3222 3223 3224 3225 3226 3227 3228 3229 3230 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 3251 3252 3253 3254 3255 3256 3257 3258 3259 3260 3261 3262 3263 3264 3265 3266 3267 3268 3269 3270 3271 3272 3273 3274 3275 3276 3277 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3285 3286 3287 3288 3289 3290 3291 3292 3293 3294 3295 3296 3297 3298 3299 3300 3301 3302 3303 3304 3305 3306 3307 3308 3309 3310 3311 3312 3313 3314 3315 3316 3317 3318 3319 3320 3321 3322 3323 3324 3325 3326 3327 3328 3329 3330 3331 3332 3333 3334 3335 3336 3337 3338 3339 3340 3341 3342 3343 3344 3345 3346 3347 3348 3349 3350 3351 3352 3353 3354 3355 3356 3357 3358 3359 3360 3361 3362 3363 3364 3365 3366 3367 3368 3369 3370 3371 3372 3373 3374 3375 3376 3377 3378 3379 3380 3381 3382 3383 3384 3385 3386 3387 3388 3389 3390 3391 3392 3393 3394 3395 3396 3397 3398 3399 3400 3401 3402 3403 3404 3405 3406 3407 3408 3409 3410 3411 3412 3413 3414 3415 3416 3417 3418 3419 3420 3421 3422 3423 3424 3425 3426 3427 3428 3429 3430 3431 3432 3433 3434 3435 3436 3437 3438 3439 3440 3441 3442 3443 3444 3445 3446 3447 3448 3449 3450 3451 3452 3453 3454 3455 3456 3457 3458 3459 3460 3461 3462 3463 3464 3465 3466 3467 3468 3469 3470 3471 3472 3473 3474 3475 3476 3477 3478 3479 3480 3481 3482 3483 3484 3485 3486 3487 3488 3489 3490 3491 3492 3493 3494 3495 3496 3497 3498 3499 3500 3501 3502 3503 3504 3505 3506 3507 3508 3509 3510 3511 3512 3513 3514 3515 3516 3517 3518 3519 3520 | {
"paper_id": "J09-3003",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T02:53:59.210589Z"
},
"title": "Recognizing Contextual Polarity: An Exploration of Features for Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Theresa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wilson",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "twilson@inf.ed.ac.uk."
},
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "wiebe@cs.pitt.edu"
},
{
"first": "Paul",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hoffmann",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "hoffmanp@cs.pitt.edu"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "Many approaches to automatic sentiment analysis begin with a large lexicon of words marked with their prior polarity (also called semantic orientation). However, the contextual polarity of the phrase in which a particular instance of a word appears may be quite different from the word's prior polarity. Positive words are used in phrases expressing negative sentiments, or vice versa. Also, quite often words that are positive or negative out of context are neutral in context, meaning they are not even being used to express a sentiment. The goal of this work is to automatically distinguish between prior and contextual polarity, with a focus on understanding which features are important for this task. Because an important aspect of the problem is identifying when polar terms are being used in neutral contexts, features for distinguishing between neutral and polar instances are evaluated, as well as features for distinguishing between positive and negative contextual polarity. The evaluation includes assessing the performance of features across multiple machine learning algorithms. For all learning algorithms except one, the combination of all features together gives the best performance. Another facet of the evaluation considers how the presence of neutral instances affects the performance of features for distinguishing between positive and negative polarity. These experiments show that the presence of neutral instances greatly degrades the performance of these features, and that perhaps the best way to improve performance across all polarity classes is to improve the system's ability to identify when an instance is neutral.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "J09-3003",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "Many approaches to automatic sentiment analysis begin with a large lexicon of words marked with their prior polarity (also called semantic orientation). However, the contextual polarity of the phrase in which a particular instance of a word appears may be quite different from the word's prior polarity. Positive words are used in phrases expressing negative sentiments, or vice versa. Also, quite often words that are positive or negative out of context are neutral in context, meaning they are not even being used to express a sentiment. The goal of this work is to automatically distinguish between prior and contextual polarity, with a focus on understanding which features are important for this task. Because an important aspect of the problem is identifying when polar terms are being used in neutral contexts, features for distinguishing between neutral and polar instances are evaluated, as well as features for distinguishing between positive and negative contextual polarity. The evaluation includes assessing the performance of features across multiple machine learning algorithms. For all learning algorithms except one, the combination of all features together gives the best performance. Another facet of the evaluation considers how the presence of neutral instances affects the performance of features for distinguishing between positive and negative polarity. These experiments show that the presence of neutral instances greatly degrades the performance of these features, and that perhaps the best way to improve performance across all polarity classes is to improve the system's ability to identify when an instance is neutral.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Sentiment analysis is a type of subjectivity analysis (Wiebe 1994 ) that focuses on identifying positive and negative opinions, emotions, and evaluations expressed in natural language. It has been a central component in applications ranging from recognizing inflammatory messages (Spertus 1997) , to tracking sentiments over time in online discussions (Tong 2001) , to classifying positive and negative reviews (Pang, Lee, and Vaithyanathan 2002; Turney 2002) . Although a great deal of work in sentiment analysis has targeted documents, applications such as opinion question answering (Yu and Hatzivassiloglou 2003; Maybury 2004; Stoyanov, Cardie, and Wiebe 2005) and review mining to extract opinions about companies and products (Morinaga et al. 2002; ) require sentence-level or even phrase-level analysis. For example, if a question answering system is to successfully answer questions about people's opinions, it must be able not only to pinpoint expressions of positive and negative sentiments, such as we find in sentence (1), but also to determine when an opinion is not being expressed by a word or phrase that typically does evoke one, such as condemned in sentence (2).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 65,
"text": "(Wiebe 1994",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 294,
"text": "(Spertus 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 363,
"text": "(Tong 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 446,
"text": "(Pang, Lee, and Vaithyanathan 2002;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 459,
"text": "Turney 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 616,
"text": "(Yu and Hatzivassiloglou 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF45"
},
{
"start": 617,
"end": 630,
"text": "Maybury 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF22"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 664,
"text": "Stoyanov, Cardie, and Wiebe 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF30"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 754,
"text": "(Morinaga et al. 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(1) African observers generally approved (positive) of his victory while Western governments denounced (negative) it.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(2) Gavin Elementary School was condemned in April 2004.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "A common approach to sentiment analysis is to use a lexicon with information about which words and phrases are positive and which are negative. This lexicon may be manually compiled, as is the case with the General Inquirer (Stone et al. 1966) , a resource often used in sentiment analysis. Alternatively, the information in the lexicon may be acquired automatically. Acquiring the polarity of words and phrases is itself an active line of research in the sentiment analysis community, pioneered by the work of Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown (1997) on predicting the polarity or semantic orientation of adjectives. Various techniques have been proposed for learning the polarity of words. They include corpus-based techniques, such as using constraints on the co-occurrence in conjunctions of words with similar or opposite polarity (Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1997) and statistical measures of word association (Turney and Littman 2003) , as well as techniques that exploit information about lexical relationships (Kamps and Marx 2002; Kim and Hovy 2004) and glosses (Esuli and Sebastiani 2005; Andreevskaia and Bergler 2006) in resources such as WordNet.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 243,
"text": "(Stone et al. 1966)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 546,
"text": "Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown (1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 831,
"end": 866,
"text": "(Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 912,
"end": 937,
"text": "(Turney and Littman 2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1055,
"text": "Kim and Hovy 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 1068,
"end": 1095,
"text": "(Esuli and Sebastiani 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1126,
"text": "Andreevskaia and Bergler 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Acquiring the polarity of words and phrases is undeniably important, and there are still open research challenges, such as addressing the sentiments of different senses of words (Esuli and Sebastiani 2006b; Wiebe and Mihalcea 2006) , and so on. However, what the polarity of a given word or phrase is when it is used in a particular context is another problem entirely. Consider, for example, the underlined positive and negative words in the following sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 206,
"text": "(Esuli and Sebastiani 2006b;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 231,
"text": "Wiebe and Mihalcea 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF39"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "(3) Philip Clapp, president of the National Environment Trust, sums up well the general thrust of the reaction of environmental movements: \"There is no reason at all to believe that the polluters are suddenly going to become reasonable.\"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The first underlined word is Trust. Although many senses of the word trust express a positive sentiment, in this case, the word is not being used to express a sentiment at all. It is simply part of an expression referring to an organization that has taken on the charge of caring for the environment. The adjective well is considered positive, and indeed it is positive in this context. However, the same is not true for the words reason and reasonable. Out of context, we would consider both of these words to be positive. 1 In context, the word reason is being negated, changing its polarity from positive to negative. The phrase no reason at all to believe changes the polarity of the proposition that follows; because reasonable falls within this proposition, its polarity becomes negative.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 524,
"end": 525,
"text": "1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The word polluters has a negative connotation, but here in the context of the discussion of the article and its position in the sentence, polluters is being used less to express a sentiment and more to objectively refer to companies that pollute. To clarify how the polarity of polluters is affected by its subject role, consider the purely negative sentiment that emerges when it is used as an object: They are polluters.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "We call the polarity that would be listed for a word in a lexicon the word's prior polarity, and we call the polarity of the expression in which a word appears, considering the context of the sentence and document, the word's contextual polarity. Although words often do have the same prior and contextual polarity, many times a word's prior and contextual polarities differ. Words with a positive prior polarity may have a negative contextual polarity, or vice versa. Quite often words that are positive or negative out of context are neutral in context, meaning that they are not even being used to express a sentiment. Similarly, words that are neutral out of context, neither positive or negative, may combine to create a positive or negative expression in context.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The focus of this work is on the recognition of contextual polarity-in particular, disambiguating the contextual polarity of words with positive or negative prior polarity. We begin by presenting an annotation scheme for marking sentiment expressions and their contextual polarity in the Multi-perspective Question Answering (MPQA) opinion corpus. We show that, given a set of subjective expressions (identified from the existing annotations in the MPQA corpus), contextual polarity can be annotated reliably.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Using the contextual polarity annotations, we conduct experiments in automatically distinguishing between prior and contextual polarity. Beginning with a large lexicon of clues tagged with prior polarity, we identify the contextual polarity of the instances of those clues in the corpus. The process that we use has two steps, first classifying each clue as being in a neutral or polar phrase, and then disambiguating the contextual polarity of the clues marked as polar. For each step in the process, we experiment with a variety of features and evaluate the performance of the features using several different machine learning algorithms.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Our experiments reveal a number of interesting findings. First, being able to accurately identify neutral contextual polarity-when a positive or negative clue is not being used to express a sentiment-is an important aspect of the problem. The importance of neutral examples has previously been noted for classifying the sentiment of documents (Koppel and Schler 2006) , but ours is the first work to explore how neutral instances affect classifying the contextual polarity of words and phrases. In particular, we found that the performance of features for distinguishing between positive and negative polarity greatly degrades when neutral instances are included in the experiments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 343,
"end": 367,
"text": "(Koppel and Schler 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "We also found that achieving the best performance for recognizing contextual polarity requires a wide variety of features. This is particularly true for distinguishing between neutral and polar instances. Although some features help to increase polar or neutral recall or precision, it is only the combination of features together that achieves significant improvements in accuracy over the baselines. Our experiments show that for distinguishing between positive and negative instances, features capturing negation are clearly the most important. However, there is more to the story than simple negation. Features that capture relationships between instances of clues also perform well, indicating that identifying features that represent more complex interdependencies between sentiment clues may be an important avenue for future research.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of some of the things that can influence contextual polarity. In Section 3, we describe our corpus and present our annotation scheme and inter-annotator agreement study for marking contextual polarity. Sections 4 and 5 describe the lexicon used in our experiments and how the contextual polarity annotations are used to determine the gold-standard tags for instances from the lexicon. In Section 6, we consider what kind of performance can be expected from a simple, prior-polarity classifier. Section 7 describes the features that we use for recognizing contextual polarity, and our experiments and results are presented in Section 8. In Section 9 we discuss related work, and we conclude in Section 10.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1."
},
{
"text": "Phrase-level sentiment analysis is not a simple problem. Many things besides negation can influence contextual polarity, and even negation is not always straightforward. Negation may be local (e.g., not good), or involve longer-distance dependencies such as the negation of the proposition (e.g., does not look very good) or the negation of the subject (e.g., no one thinks that it's good). In addition, certain phrases that contain negation words intensify rather than change polarity (e.g., not only good but amazing). Contextual polarity may also be influenced by modality: whether the proposition is asserted to be real (realis) or not real (irrealis) (no reason at all to believe is irrealis, for example); word sense (e.g., Environmental Trust vs. He has won the people's trust); the syntactic role of a word in the sentence: whether the word is the subject or object of a copular verb (consider polluters are versus they are polluters); and diminishers such as little (e.g., little truth, little threat). Polanyi and Zaenen (2004) give a detailed discussion of many of these types of polarity influencers. Many of these contextual polarity influencers are represented as features in our experiments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1012,
"end": 1037,
"text": "Polanyi and Zaenen (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Influencers",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Contextual polarity may also be influenced by the domain or topic. For example, the word cool is positive if used to describe a car, but it is negative if it is used to describe someone's demeanor. Similarly, a word such as fever is unlikely to be expressing a sentiment when used in a medical context. We use one feature in our experiments to represent the topic of the document.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Influencers",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "Another important aspect of contextual polarity is the perspective of the person who is expressing the sentiment. For example, consider the phrase failed to defeat in the sentence Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah. From the perspective of Israel, failed to defeat is negative. From the perspective of Hezbollah, failed to defeat is positive. Therefore, the contextual polarity of this phrase ultimately depends on the perspective of who is expressing the sentiment. Although automatically detecting this kind of pragmatic influence on polarity is beyond the scope of this work, this as well as the other types of polarity influencers all are considered when annotating contextual polarity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Influencers",
"sec_num": "2."
},
{
"text": "For the experiments in this work, we need a corpus that is annotated comprehensively for sentiment expressions and their contextual polarity. Rather than building a corpus from scratch, we chose to add contextual polarity annotations to the existing annotations in the Multi-perspective Question Answering (MPQA) opinion corpus 2 (Wiebe, Wilson, and Cardie 2005) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 330,
"end": 362,
"text": "(Wiebe, Wilson, and Cardie 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF41"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Annotations",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "The MPQA corpus is a collection of English-language versions of news documents from the world press. The documents contain detailed, expression-level annotations of attributions and private states (Quirk et al. 1985) . Private states are mental and emotional states; they include beliefs, speculations, intentions, and sentiments, among others. Although sentiments are not distinguished from other types of private states in the existing annotations, they are a subset of what already is annotated. This makes the annotations in the MPQA corpus a good starting point for annotating sentiment expressions and their contextual polarity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 197,
"end": 216,
"text": "(Quirk et al. 1985)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Data and Annotations",
"sec_num": "3."
},
{
"text": "When developing our annotation scheme for sentiment expressions and contextual polarity, there were three main questions to address. First, which of the existing annotations in the MPQA corpus have the possibility of being sentiment expressions? Second, which of the possible sentiment expressions actually are expressing sentiments? Third, what coding scheme should be used for marking contextual polarity?",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The MPQA annotation scheme has four types of annotations: objective speech event frames, two types of private state frames, and agent frames that are used for marking speakers of speech events and experiencers of private states. A full description of the MPQA annotation scheme and an agreement study evaluating key aspects of the scheme are found in Wiebe, Wilson, and Cardie (2005) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 351,
"end": 383,
"text": "Wiebe, Wilson, and Cardie (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF41"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The two types of private state frames, direct subjective frames and expressive subjective element frames, are where we will find sentiment expressions. Direct subjective frames are used to mark direct references to private states as well as speech events in which private states are being expressed. For example, in the following sentences, fears, praised, and said are all marked as direct subjective annotations.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(4) The U.S. fears a spill-over of the anti-terrorist campaign.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(5) Italian senator Renzo Gubert praised the Chinese government's efforts.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(6) \"The report is full of absurdities,\" he said.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The word fears directly refers to a private state; praised refers to a speech event in which a private state is being expressed; and said is marked as direct subjective because a private state is being expressed within the speech event referred to by said. Expressive subjective elements indirectly express private states through the way something is described or through a particular wording. In example (6), the phrase full of absurdities is an expressive subjective element. Subjectivity (Banfield 1982; Wiebe 1994 ) refers to the linguistic expression of private states, hence the names for the two types of private state annotations.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 491,
"end": 506,
"text": "(Banfield 1982;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 517,
"text": "Wiebe 1994",
"ref_id": "BIBREF37"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "All expressive subjective elements are included in the set of annotations that have the possibility of being sentiment expressions, but the direct subjective frames to include in this set can be pared down further. Direct subjective frames have an attribute, expression intensity, that captures the contribution of the annotated word or phrase to the overall intensity of the private state being expressed. Expression intensity ranges from neutral to high. In the given sentences, fears and praised have an expression intensity of medium, and said has an expression intensity of neutral. A neutral expression intensity indicates that the direct subjective phrase itself is not contributing to the expression of the private state. If this is the case, then the direct subjective phrase cannot be a sentiment expression. Thus, only direct subjective annotations with a non-neutral expression intensity are included in the set of annotations that have the possibility of being sentiment expressions. We call this set of annotations, the union of the expressive subjective elements and the direct subjective frames with a non-neutral intensity, the subjective expressions in the corpus; these are the annotations we will mark for contextual polarity. Table 1 gives a sample of subjective expressions marked in the MPQA corpus. Although many of the words and phrases express what we typically think of as sentiments, others do not, for example, believes, very definitely, and unconditionally and without delay.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1254,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Now that we have identified which annotations have the possibility of being sentiment expressions, the next question is which of these annotated words and phrases are actually expressing sentiments. We define a sentiment as a positive or negative emotion, evaluation, or stance. On the left of Table 2 are examples of positive sentiments; examples of negative sentiments are on the right. The final issue to address is the actual annotation scheme for marking contextual polarity. The scheme we developed has four tags: positive, negative, both, and neutral. The positive tag is used to mark positive sentiments. The negative tag is used to mark negative sentiments. The both tag is applied to expressions in which both a positive and negative sentiment are being expressed. Subjective expressions with positive, negative, or both tags are our sentiment expressions. The neutral tag is used for all other subjective expressions, including emotions, evaluations, and stances that are neither positive or negative. Instructions for the contextual-polarity annotation scheme are available at http://www.cs.pitt.edu/mpqa/databaserelease/polarityCodingInstructions.txt.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 294,
"end": 301,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "Following are examples from the corpus of each of the different contextual-polarity annotations. Each underlined word or phrase is a subjective expression that was marked in the original MPQA annotations. 3 In bold following each subjective expression is the contextual polarity with which it was annotated. (10) Jerome says the hospital feels (neutral) no different than a hospital in the states.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 206,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "As a final note on the annotation scheme, annotators are asked to judge the contextual polarity of the sentiment that is ultimately being conveyed by the subjective expression, that is, once the sentence has been fully interpreted. Thus, the subjective expression, they have not succeeded, and will never succeed, is marked as positive in the following sentence:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "(11) They have not succeeded, and will never succeed (positive), in breaking the will of this valiant people.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "The reasoning is that breaking the will of a valiant people is negative, so to not succeed in breaking their will is positive. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Annotation Scheme",
"sec_num": "3.1"
},
{
"text": "To measure the reliability of the polarity annotation scheme, we conducted an agreement study with two annotators 4 using 10 documents from the MPQA corpus. The 10 documents contain 447 subjective expressions. Table 3 shows the contingency table for the two annotators' judgments. Overall agreement is 82%, with a kappa value of 0.72. As part of the annotation scheme, annotators are asked to judge how certain they are in their polarity tags. For 18% of the subjective expressions, at least one annotator used the uncertain tag when marking polarity. If we consider these cases to be borderline and exclude them from the study, percent agreement increases to 90% and kappa rises to 0.84. Table 4 shows the revised contingency table with the uncertain cases removed. This shows that annotator agreement is especially high when both annotators are certain, and that annotators are certain for over 80% of their tags.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 210,
"end": 217,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": "TABREF2"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 696,
"text": "Table 4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Agreement Study",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "Note that all annotations are included in the experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Agreement Study",
"sec_num": "3.2"
},
{
"text": "In total, all 19,962 subjective expressions in the 535 documents (11,112 sentences) of the MPQA corpus were annotated with their contextual polarity as just described. 5 Three annotators carried out the task: the two who participated in the annotation study and a third who was trained later. 6 Table 5 gives the distribution of the contextual polarity tags. Looking at this table, we see that a small majority of subjective expressions (54.6%) are expressing a positive, negative, or both (positive and negative) sentiment. We refer to these expressions as polar in context. Many of the subjective expressions are neutral and do not express a sentiment. This suggests that, although sentiment is a major type of subjectivity, distinguishing other prominent types of subjectivity will be important for future work in subjectivity analysis. As many NLP applications operate at the sentence level, one important issue to consider is the distribution of sentences with respect to the subjective expressions they contain. In the 11,112 sentences in the MPQA corpus, 28% contain no subjective expressions, 24% contain only one, and 48% contain two or more. Of the 5,304 sentences containing two or more subjective expressions, 17% contain mixtures of positive and negative expressions, and 61% contain mixtures of polar (positive/negative/both) and neutral subjective expressions.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 169,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 302,
"text": "Table 5",
"ref_id": "TABREF3"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Contextual Polarity Annotations",
"sec_num": "3.3"
},
{
"text": "For the experiments in this article, we use a lexicon of over 8,000 subjectivity clues. Subjectivity clues are words and phrases that may be used to express private states. In other words, subjectivity clues have subjective usages, though they may have objective usages as well. For this work, only single-word clues are used.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "To compile the lexicon, we began with the list of subjectivity clues from Riloff and Wiebe (2003) , which includes the positive and negative adjectives from Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown (1997) . The words in this list were grouped in previous work according to their reliability as subjectivity clues. Words that are subjective in most contexts are considered strong subjective clues, indicated by the strongsubj tag. Words that may only have certain subjective usages are considered weak subjective clues, indicated by the weaksubj tag.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 97,
"text": "Riloff and Wiebe (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 192,
"text": "Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown (1997)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "We expanded the list using a dictionary and a thesaurus, and added words from the General Inquirer positive and negative word lists (Stone et al. 1966 ) that we judged to be potentially subjective. 7 We also gave the new words strongsubj and weaksubj reliability tags. The final lexicon has a coverage of 67% of subjective expressions in the MPQA corpus, where coverage is the percentage of subjective expressions containing one or more instances of clues from the lexicon. The coverage of just sentiment expressions is even higher: 75%.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 150,
"text": "(Stone et al. 1966",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 199,
"text": "7",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "The next step was to tag the clues in the lexicon with their prior polarity: positive, negative, both, or neutral. A word in the lexicon is tagged as positive if out of context it seems to evoke something positive, and negative if it seems to evoke something negative. If a word has both positive and negative meanings, it is tagged with the polarity that seems the most common. A word is tagged as both if it is at the same time both positive and negative. For example, the word bittersweet evokes something both positive and negative. Words like brag are also tagged as both, because the one who is bragging is expressing something positive, yet at the same time describing someone as bragging is expressing a negative evaluation of that person. A word is tagged as neutral if it does not evoke anything positive or negative.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "For words that came from positive and negative word lists (Stone et al. 1966; Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1997) , we largely retained their original polarity. However, we did change the polarity of a word if we strongly disagreed with its original class. 8 For example, the word apocalypse is listed as positive in the General Inquirer; we changed its prior polarity to negative for our lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 77,
"text": "(Stone et al. 1966;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 112,
"text": "Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1997)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "By far, the majority of clues in the lexicon (92.8%) are marked as having either positive (33.1%) or negative (59.7%) prior polarity. Only a small number of clues (0.3%) are marked as having both positive and negative polarity. We refer to the set of clues marked as positive, negative, or both as sentiment clues. A total of 6.9% of the clues in the lexicon are marked as neutral. Examples of neutral clues are verbs such as feel, look, and think, and intensifiers such as deeply, entirely, and practically. Although the neutral clues make up a small proportion of the total words in the lexicon, we retain them for our later experiments in recognizing contextual polarity because many of them are good clues that a sentiment is being expressed (e.g., feels slighted, feels satisfied, look kindly on, look forward to). Including them increases the coverage of the system.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "At the end of the previous section, we considered the distribution of sentences in the MPQA corpus with respect to the subjective expressions they contain. It is interesting to compare that distribution with the distribution of sentences with respect to the instances they contain of clues from the lexicon. We find that there are more sentences with two or more clue instances (62%) than sentences with two or more subjective expressions (48%). More importantly, many more sentences have mixtures of positive and negative clue instances than actually have mixtures of positive and negative subjective expressions. Only 880 sentences have a mixture of both positive and negative subjective expressions, whereas 3,234 sentences have a mixture of positive and negative clue instances. Thus, a large number of positive and negative instances are either neutral in context, or they are combining to form more complex polarity expressions. Either way, this provides strong evidence of the need to be able to disambiguate the contextual polarity of subjectivity and sentiment clues.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Prior-Polarity Subjectivity Lexicon",
"sec_num": "4."
},
{
"text": "In the experiments described in the following sections, the goal is to classify the contextual polarity of the expressions that contain instances of the subjectivity clues in our lexicon. However, determining which clue instances are part of the same expression and identifying expression boundaries are not the focus of this work. Thus, instead of trying to identify and label each expression, in the following experiments, each clue instance is labeled individually as to its contextual polarity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition of the Gold Standard",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "We define the gold-standard contextual polarity of a clue instance in terms of the manual annotations (Section 3) as follows. If a clue instance is not in a subjective expression (and therefore not in a sentiment expression), its gold class is neutral. If a clue instance appears in just one subjective expression or in multiple subjective expressions with the same contextual polarity, its gold class is the contextual polarity of the subjective expression(s). If a clue instance appears in a mixture of negative and neutral subjective expressions, its gold class is negative; if it is in a mixture of positive and neutral subjective expressions, its gold class is positive. Finally, if a clue instance appears in at least one positive and one negative subjective expression (or in a subjective expression marked as both), then its gold class is both. A clue instance can appear in more than one subjective expression because in the MPQA annotation scheme, it is possible for direct subjective frames and expressive subjective elements frames to overlap.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Definition of the Gold Standard",
"sec_num": "5."
},
{
"text": "Before delving into the task of recognizing contextual polarity, an important question to address is how useful prior polarity alone is for identifying contextual polarity. To answer this question, we create a classifier that simply assumes the contextual polarity of a clue instance is the same as the clue's prior polarity. We explore this classifier's performance on a small amount of development data, which is not part of the data used in the subsequent experiments.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Prior-Polarity Classifier",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "This simple classifier has an accuracy of 48%. From the confusion matrix given in Table 6 , we see that 76% of the errors result from words with non-neutral prior polarity appearing in phrases with neutral contextual polarity. Only 12% of the errors result from words with neutral prior polarity appearing in expressions with non-neutral contextual polarity, and only 11% of the errors come from words with a positive or negative prior polarity appearing in expressions with the opposite contextual polarity. Table 6 also shows that positive clues tend to be used in negative expressions far more often than negative clues tend to be used in positive expressions.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 89,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 516,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Prior-Polarity Classifier",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "Given that by far the largest number of errors come from clues with positive, negative, or both prior polarity appearing in neutral contexts, we were motivated to try a two-step approach to the problem of sentiment classification. The first step, Neutral-Polar Classification, tries to determine if an instance is neutral or polar in context. The second step, Polarity Classification, takes all instances that step one classified as polar, and tries to disambiguate their contextual polarity. This two-step approach is illustrated in Figure 1 .",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 534,
"end": 542,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Prior-Polarity Classifier",
"sec_num": "6."
},
{
"text": "The features used in our experiments were motivated both by the literature and by exploration of the contextual-polarity annotations in our development data. A number Table 6 Confusion matrix for the prior-polarity classifier on the development set. of features were inspired by the paper on contextual-polarity influencers by Polanyi and Zaenan (2004) . Other features are those that have been found useful in the past for recognizing subjective sentences (Wiebe, Bruce, and O'Hara 1999; Wiebe and Riloff 2005) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 327,
"end": 352,
"text": "Polanyi and Zaenan (2004)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 488,
"text": "(Wiebe, Bruce, and O'Hara 1999;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF38"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 511,
"text": "Wiebe and Riloff 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF40"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 167,
"end": 174,
"text": "Table 6",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features",
"sec_num": "7."
},
{
"text": "For distinguishing between neutral and polar instances, we use the features listed in Table 7 . For ease of description, we group the features into six sets: word features, general modification features, polarity modification features, structure features, sentence features, and one document feature. Word Features In addition to the word token (the token of the clue instance being classified), the word features include the parts of speech of the previous word, the word itself, and the next word. The prior polarity and reliability class features represent those pieces of information about the clue which are taken from the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 93,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "General Modification Features These are binary features that capture different types of relationships involving the clue instance.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "The first four features involve relationships with the word immediately before or after the clue instance. The preceded by adjective feature is true if the clue instance is a noun preceded by an adjective. The preceded by adverb feature is true if the preceding word is an adverb other than not. The preceded by intensifier feature is true if the preceding word is an intensifier, and the self intensifier feature is true if the clue instance itself is an intensifier. A word is considered to be an intensifier if it appears in a list of intensifiers and if it precedes a word of the appropriate part of speech (e.g., an intensifier adjective must come before a noun). The list of intensifiers is a compilation of those listed in Quirk et al. (1985) , intensifiers identified from existing entries in the subjectivity lexicon, and intensifiers identified during explorations of the development data.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 730,
"end": 749,
"text": "Quirk et al. (1985)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "The modifies/modifed by features involve the dependency parse tree of the sentence, obtained by first parsing the sentence (Collins 1997) and then converting the tree into its dependency representation (Xia and Palmer 2001) . In a dependency representation, every node in the tree structure is a surface word (i.e., there are no abstract nodes such as NP or VP). The parent word is called the head, and its children are its modifiers. The Sentence Features strongsubj clues in current sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) strongsubj clues in previous sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) strongsubj clues in next sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) weaksubj clues in current sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) weaksubj clues in previous sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) weaksubj clues in next sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) adjectives in sentence: 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) adverbs in sentence (other than not): 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) cardinal number in sentence: binary pronoun in sentence: binary modal in sentence (other than will): binary Document Feature document topic/domain edge between a parent and a child specifies the grammatical relationship between the two words. Figure 2 shows an example of a dependency parse tree. Instances of clues in the tree are marked with the clue's prior polarity and reliability class from the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 137,
"text": "(Collins 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 223,
"text": "(Xia and Palmer 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF43"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1148,
"end": 1156,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "For each clue instance, the modifies/modifed by features capture whether there are adj, mod, or vmod relationships between the clue instance and any other instances from the lexicon. Specifically, the modifies strongsubj feature is true if the clue instance and its parent share an adj, mod, or vmod relationship, and if its parent is an instance of a strongsubj clue from the lexicon. The modifies weaksubj feature is the same, except that it looks in the parent for an instance of a weaksubj clue. The modified by strongsubj The dependency tree for the sentence The human rights report poses a substantial challenge to the U.S. interpretation of good and evil. Prior polarity and reliability class are marked in parentheses for words that match clues from the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "feature is true for a clue instance if one of its children is an instance of a strongsubj clue, and if the clue instance and its child share an adj, mod, or vmod relationship. The modified by weaksubj feature is the same, except that it looks for instances of weaksubj clues in the children. Although the adj and vmod relationships are typically local, the mod relationship involves longer-distance as well as local dependencies. Figure 2 helps to illustrate these features. The modifies weaksubj feature is true for substantial, because substantial modifies challenge, which is an instance of a weaksubj clue. For rights, the modifies weaksubj feature is false, because rights modifies report, which is not an instance of a weaksubj clue. The modified by weaksubj feature is false for substantial, because it has no modifiers that are instances of weaksubj clues. For challenge, the modified by weaksubj feature is true because it is being modified by substantial, which is an instance of a weaksubj clue.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 430,
"end": 438,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "Polarity Modification Features The modifies polarity, modified by polarity, and conj polarity features capture specific relationships between the clue instance and other sentiment clues it may be related to. If the clue instance and its parent in the dependency tree share an obj, adj, mod, or vmod relationship, the modifies polarity feature is set to the prior polarity of the parent. If the parent is not in the prior-polarity lexicon, its prior polarity is considered neutral. If the clue instance is at the root of the tree and has no parent, the value of the feature is notmod. The modified by polarity feature is similar, looking for adj, mod, and vmod relationships and other sentiment clues in the children of the clue instance. The conj polarity feature determines if the clue instance is in a conjunction. If so, the value of this feature is its sibling's prior polarity. As before, if the sibling is not in the lexicon, its prior polarity is neutral. If the clue instance is not in a conjunction, the value for this feature is notmod. Figure 2 also helps to illustrate these modification features. The word substantial with positive prior polarity modifies the word challenge with negative prior polarity. Therefore the modifies polarity feature is negative for substantial, and the modified by polarity feature is positive for challenge. The words good and evil are in a conjunction together; thus the conj polarity feature is negative for good and positive for evil.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1047,
"end": 1055,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "Structure Features These are binary features that are determined by starting with the clue instance and climbing up the dependency parse tree toward the root, looking for particular relationships, words, or patterns. The in subject feature is true if we find a subj relationship on the path to the root. The in copular feature is true if in subject is false and if a node along the path is both a main verb and a copular verb. The in passive feature is true if a passive verb pattern is found on the climb.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "The in subject and in copular features were motivated by the intuition that the syntactic role of a word may influence whether a word is being used to express a sentiment. For example, consider the word polluters in each of the following two sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "(12) Under the application shield, polluters are allowed to operate if they have a permit.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "(13) \"The big-city folks are pointing at the farmers and saying you are polluters . . . \"",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "In the first sentence, polluters is simply being used as a referring expression. In the second sentence, polluters is clearly being used to express a negative evaluation of the farmers. The motivation for the in passive feature was previous work by Riloff and Wiebe (2003) , who found that different words are more or less likely to be subjective depending on whether they are in the active or passive. Sentence Features These are features that previously were found useful for sentence-level subjectivity classification (Wiebe, Bruce, and O'Hara 1999; Wiebe and Riloff 2005) . They include counts of strongsubj and weaksubj clue instances in the current, previous and next sentences, counts of adjectives and adverbs other than not in the current sentence, and binary features to indicate whether the sentence contains a pronoun, a cardinal number, and a modal other than will. Document Feature There is one document feature representing the topic or domain of the document. The motivation for this feature is that whether or not a word is expressing a sentiment or even a private state in general may depend on the subject of the discourse. For example, the words fever and sufferer may express a negative sentiment in certain contexts, but probably not in a health or medical context, as is the case in the following sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 249,
"end": 272,
"text": "Riloff and Wiebe (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF26"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 552,
"text": "(Wiebe, Bruce, and O'Hara 1999;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF38"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 575,
"text": "Wiebe and Riloff 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF40"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "(14) The disease can be contracted if a person is bitten by a certain tick or if a person comes into contact with the blood of a congo fever sufferer.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "In the creation of the MPQA corpus, about two-thirds of the documents were selected to be on one of the 10 topics listed in Table 8 . The documents for each topic were identified by human searches and by an information retrieval system. The remaining documents were semi-randomly selected from a very large pool of documents from the world press. In the corpus, these documents are listed with the topic miscellaneous. Rather than leaving these documents unlabeled, we chose to label them using the following general domain categories: economics, general politics, health, report events, and war and terrorism. Table 9 lists the features that we use for step two, polarity classification. Word token, word prior polarity, and the polarity-modification features are the same as described for neutral-polar classification. We use two features to capture two different types of negation. The negated feature is a binary feature that is used to capture more local negations: Its value is true if a negation word or phrase is found within the four words preceding the clue instance, and if the negation word is not also in a phrase that acts as an intensifier rather than a negator. Examples of phrases that intensify rather than negate are not only and nothing if not. The negated subject feature captures a longer-distance type of negation. This feature is true if the subject of the clause containing the clue instance is negated. For example, the negated subject feature is true for support in the following sentence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 131,
"text": "Table 8",
"ref_id": "TABREF6"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 618,
"text": "Table 9",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "7.1"
},
{
"text": "(15) No politically prudent Israeli could support either of them.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Polarity Classification",
"sec_num": "7.2"
},
{
"text": "The last three polarity features look in a window of four words before the clue instance, searching for the presence of particular types of polarity influencers. General polarity shifters reverse polarity (e.g., little truth, little threat). Negative polarity shifters typically make the polarity of an expression negative (e.g., lack of understanding). Positive polarity shifters typically make the polarity of an expression positive (e.g., abate the damage). The polarity influencers that we used were identified through explorations of the development data.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Features for Polarity Classification",
"sec_num": "7.2"
},
{
"text": "We have two primary goals with our experiments in recognizing contextual polarity. The first is to evaluate the features described in Section 7 as to their usefulness for this task. The second is to investigate the importance of recognizing neutral instancesrecognizing when a sentiment clue is not being used to express a sentiment-for classifying contextual polarity.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "To evaluate features, we investigate their performance, both together and separately, across several different learning algorithms. Varying the learning algorithm allows us to verify that the features are robust and that their performance is not the artifact of a particular algorithm. We experiment with four different types of machine learning: boosting, memory-based learning, rule learning, and support vector learning. For boosting, we use BoosTexter (Schapire and Singer 2000) AdaBoost.MH. For rule learning, we use Ripper (Cohen 1996) . For memory-based learning, we use TiMBL (Daelemans et al. 2003b ) IB1 (k-nearest neighbor). For support vector learning, we use SVM-light and SVM-multiclass (Joachims 1999) . SVM-light is used for the experiments involving binary classification (neutral-polar classification), and SVM-multiclass is used for experiments with more than two classes. These machine learning algorithms were chosen because they have been used successfully for a number of natural language processing tasks, and they represent several different types of learning.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 529,
"end": 541,
"text": "(Cohen 1996)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 607,
"text": "(Daelemans et al. 2003b",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 716,
"text": "(Joachims 1999)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "For all of the classification algorithms except for SVM, the features for a clue instance are represented as they are presented in Section 7. For SVM, the representations for numeric and discrete-valued features are changed. Numeric features, such as the count of strongsubj clue instances in a sentence, are scaled to range between 0 and 1. Discrete-valued features, such as the reliability class feature, are converted into multiple binary features. For example, the reliability class feature is represented by two binary features: one for whether the clue instance is a strongsubj clue and one for whether the clue instance is a weaksubj clue.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "To investigate the importance of recognizing neutral instances, we perform two sets of polarity classification (step two) experiments. First, we experiment with classifying the polarity of all gold-standard polar instances-the clue instances identified as polar in context by the manual polarity annotations. Second, we experiment with using the polar instances identified automatically by the neutral-polar classifiers. Because the second set of experiments includes the neutral instances misclassified in step one, we can compare results for the two sets of experiments to see how the noise of neutral instances affects the performance of the polarity features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "All experiments are performed using 10-fold cross validation over a test set of 10,287 sentences from 494 MPQA corpus documents. We measure performance in terms of accuracy, recall, precision, and F-measure. Accuracy is simply the total number of instances correctly classified. Recall, precision, and F-measure for a given class C are defined as follows. Recall is the percentage of all instances of class C correctly identified.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "Rec(C) = | instances of C correctly identified | | all instances of C |",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "Precision is the percentage of instances classified as class C that are class C in truth.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "Prec(C) = | instances of C correctly identified | | all instances identified as C | F-measure is the harmonic mean of recall and precision.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "F(C) = 2 \u00d7Rec(C) \u00d7 Prec(C) Rec(C) + Prec(C)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "All results reported are averages over the 10 folds.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Experiments in Recognizing Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8."
},
{
"text": "In our two-step process for recognizing contextual polarity, the first step is neutral-polar classification, determining whether each instance of a clue from the lexicon is neutral or polar in context. In our test set, there are 26,729 instances of clues from the lexicon. The features we use for this step were listed above in Table 7 and described in Section 7.1. In this section, we perform two sets of experiments. In the first, we compare the results of neutral-polar classification using all the neutral-polar features against two baselines. The first baseline uses just the word token feature. The second baseline (word+priorpol) uses the word token and prior polarity features. In the second set of experiments, we explore the performance of different sets of features for neutral-polar classification.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 328,
"end": 335,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "8.1"
},
{
"text": "Research has shown that the performance of learning algorithms for NLP tasks can vary widely depending on their parameter settings, and that the optimal parameter settings can also vary depending on the set of features being evaluated (Daelemans et al. 2003a; Hoste 2005) . Although the goal of this work is not to identify the optimal configuration for each algorithm and each set of features, we still want to make a reasonable attempt to find a good configuration for each algorithm. To do this, we perform 10-fold cross validation of the more challenging baseline classifier (word+priorpol) on the development data, varying select parameter settings. The results from those experiments are then used to select the parameter settings for each algorithm. For BoosTexter, we vary the number of rounds of boosting. For TiMBL, we vary the value for k (the number of neighbors) and the distance metric (overlap or modified value difference metric [MVDM] ). For Ripper, we vary whether negative tests are disallowed for nominal (-!n) and set (-!s) valued attributes and how much to simplify the hypothesis (-S). For SVM, we experiment with linear, polynomial, and radial basis function kernels. Table 10 gives the settings selected for the neutral-polar classification experiments for the different learning algorithms. Table 11 . For each algorithm, we give the results for the two baseline classifiers, followed by the results for the classifier trained using all the neutral-polar features. The results shown in bold are significantly better than both baselines (two-sided t-test, p \u2264 0.05) for the given algorithm. Working together, how well do the neutral-polar features perform? For BoosTexter, TiMBL, and Ripper, the classifiers trained using all the features improve significantly over the two baselines in terms of accuracy, polar recall, polar F-measure, and neutral precision. Neutral F-measure is also higher, but not significantly so. These consistent results across three of the four algorithms show that the neutral-polar features are helpful for determining when a sentiment clue is actually being used to express a sentiment.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 235,
"end": 259,
"text": "(Daelemans et al. 2003a;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 271,
"text": "Hoste 2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 945,
"end": 951,
"text": "[MVDM]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 1192,
"end": 1200,
"text": "Table 10",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 1317,
"end": 1325,
"text": "Table 11",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "8.1"
},
{
"text": "Interestingly, Ripper is the only algorithm for which the word-token baseline performed better than the word+priorpol baseline. Nevertheless, the prior polarity feature is an important component in the performance of the Ripper classifier using all the features. Excluding prior polarity from this classifier results in a significant decrease in Table 11 Results for neutral-polar classification (step one). performance for every metric. Decreases range from 2.5% for neutral recall to 9.5% for polar recall. The best SVM classifier is the word+priorpol baseline. In terms of accuracy, this classifier does not perform much worse than the BoosTexter and TiMBL classifiers that use all the neutral-polar features: The SVM word+priorpol baseline classifier has an accuracy of 75.6%, and both the BoosTexter and TiMBL classifiers have an accuracy of 76.5%. However, the BoosTexter and TiMBL classifiers using all the features perform notably better in terms of polar recall and F-measure. The BoosTexter and TiMBL classifiers have polar recalls that are 7% and 9.2% higher than the SVM baseline. Polar F-measures for BoosTexter and TiMBL are 3.9% and 4.5% higher. These increases are significant for p \u2264 0.01.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 346,
"end": 354,
"text": "Table 11",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Neutral-Polar Classification",
"sec_num": "8.1"
},
{
"text": "To evaluate the contribution of the various features for neutral-polar classification, we perform a series of experiments in which different sets of neutral-polar features are added to the word+priorpol baseline and new classifiers are trained. We then compare the performance of these new classifiers to the word+priorpol baseline, with the exception of the Ripper classifiers, which we compare to the higher word baseline. Table 12 lists the sets of features tested in these experiments. The feature sets generally correspond to how the neutral-polar features are presented in Table 7 , although some of the groups are broken down into more fine-grained sets that we believe capture meaningful distinctions. Table 13 gives the results for these experiments. Increases and decreases for a given metric as compared to the word+priorpol baseline (word baseline for Ripper) are indicated by + or -, respectively. Where changes are significant at the p \u2264 0.1 level, ++ or --are used, and where changes are significant at the p \u2264 0.05 level, +++ or --are used. An \"nc\" indicates no change (a change of less than \u00b1 0.05) compared to the baseline.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 425,
"end": 433,
"text": "Table 12",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 586,
"text": "Table 7",
"ref_id": "TABREF5"
},
{
"start": 710,
"end": 718,
"text": "Table 13",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature Set Evaluation.",
"sec_num": "8.1.2"
},
{
"text": "What does Table 13 reveal about the performance of various feature sets for neutralpolar classification? Most noticeable is that no individual feature sets stand out as strong performers. The only significant improvements in accuracy come from the PARTS-OF-SPEECH and RELIABILITY-CLASS feature sets for Ripper. These improvements are perhaps not surprising given that the Ripper baseline was much lower to begin with. Very few feature sets show any improvement for SVM. Again, this is not unexpected given that all the features together performed worse than the word+priorpol baseline for SVM. The performance of the feature sets for BoosTexter and TiMBL are perhaps the most revealing. In the previous experiments using all the features together, these algorithms produced classifiers with the same high performance. In these experiments, six different feature sets for each algorithm show improvements in accuracy over the baseline, yet none of those improvements are significant. This suggests that achieving the highest performance for neutral-polar classification requires a wide variety of features working together in combination. We further test this result by evaluating the effect of removing the features that produced either no change or a drop in accuracy from the respective all-feature classifiers. For example, we train a TiMBL neutral-polar classifier using all the features except for those in the PRECEDED-POS, INTENSIFY, STRUCTURE, CURSENT-COUNTS, and TOPIC feature sets, and then compare the performance of this new classifier to the TiMBL, allfeature classifier. Although removing the non-performing features has little effect for BoosTexter, performance does drop for both TiMBL and Ripper. The primary source of this performance drop is a decrease in polar recall: 2% for TiMBL and 3.2% for Ripper.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 18,
"text": "Table 13",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature Set Evaluation.",
"sec_num": "8.1.2"
},
{
"text": "Although no feature sets stand out in Table 13 as far as giving an overall high performance, there are some features that consistently improve performance across the different algorithms. The reliability class of the clue instance (RELIABILITY-CLASS) improves accuracy over the baseline for all four algorithms. It is the only feature that does so. The RELCLASS-MOD features give improvements for all metrics for BoosTexter, Ripper, and TiMBL, as well as improving polar F-measure for SVM. The PARTS-OF-SPEECH features are also fairly consistent, improving performance for all the algorithms except for SVM. There are also a couple of feature sets that consistently do not improve performance for any of the algorithms: the INTENSIFY and PRECEDED-POS features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 46,
"text": "Table 13",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature Set Evaluation.",
"sec_num": "8.1.2"
},
{
"text": "For the second step of recognizing contextual polarity, we classify the polarity of all clue instances identified as polar in step one. The features for polarity classification were listed in Table 9 and described in Section 7.2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 199,
"text": "Table 9",
"ref_id": "TABREF7"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Classification",
"sec_num": "8.2"
},
{
"text": "We investigate the performance of the polarity features under two conditions: (1) perfect neutral-polar recognition and (2) automatic neutral-polar recognition. For condition 1, we identify the polar instances according to the gold-standard, manual contextual-polarity annotations. In the test data, 9,835 instances of the clues from the lexicon are polar in context according to the manual annotations. Experiments under condition 1 classify these instances as having positive, negative, or both (positive and negative) polarity. For condition 2, we take the best performing neutral-polar classifier for each algorithm and use the output from those algorithms to identify the polar instances. Because polar instances now are being identified automatically, there will be noise in the form of misclassified neutral instances. Therefore, for experiments under condition 2 we include the neutral class and perform four-way classification instead of three-way. Condition 1 allows us to investigate the performance of the different polarity features without the noise of misclassified neutral instances. Also, because the set of polar instances being classified is the same for all the algorithms, condition 1 allows us to compare the performance of the polarity features across the different algorithms. However, condition 2 is the more natural one. It allows us to see how the noise of neutral instances affects the performance of the polarity features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Classification",
"sec_num": "8.2"
},
{
"text": "The following sections describe three sets of experiments. First, we investigate the performance of the polarity features used together for polarity classification under condition 1. As before, the word and word+priorpol classifiers provide our baselines. In the second set of experiments, we explore the performance of different sets of features for polarity classification, again assuming perfect recognition of the polar instances. Finally, we experiment with polarity classification using all the polarity features under condition 2, automatic recognition of the polar instances.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Classification",
"sec_num": "8.2"
},
{
"text": "As before, we use the development data to select the parameter settings for each algorithm. The settings for polarity classification are given in Table 14 . They were selected based on the performance of the word+priorpol baseline classifier under condition 2.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 154,
"text": "Table 14",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Polarity Classification",
"sec_num": "8.2"
},
{
"text": ": Condition 1. The results for polarity classification using all the polarity features, assuming perfect neutral-polar recognition for step one, are given in Table 15 . For each algorithm, we give the results for the two baseline classifiers, followed by the results for the classifier trained using all the polarity features. For the metrics where the polarity features perform statistically better than both baselines (two-sided t-test, p \u2264 0.05), the results are given in bold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 166,
"text": "Table 15",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Classification Results",
"sec_num": "8.2.1"
},
{
"text": "Algorithm settings for polarity classification.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 14",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "BoosTexter 2,000 rounds of boosting TiMBL k=1, MVDM distance metric Ripper -!s, -S 0.5 SVM linear kernel Table 15 Results for polarity classification (step two) using gold-standard polar instances.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 113,
"text": "Table 15",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Algorithm Settings",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Acc How well do the polarity features perform working all together? For all algorithms, the polarity classifier using all the features significantly outperforms both baselines in terms of accuracy, positive F-measure, and negative F-measure. These consistent improvements in performance across all four algorithms show that these features are quite useful for polarity classification.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Positive Negative Both",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "One interesting thing that Table 15 reveals is that negative polarity words are much more straightforward to recognize than positive polarity words, at least in this corpus. For the negative class, precisions and recalls for the word+priorpol baseline range from 82.2 to 87.2. For the positive class, precisions and recalls for the word+priorpol baseline range from 63.7 to 76.7. However, it is with the positive class that polarity features seem to help the most. With the addition of the polarity features, positive F-measure improves by 5 points on average; improvements in negative F-measures average only 2.75 points.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"text": "Table 15",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Positive Negative Both",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To evaluate the performance of the various features for polarity classification, we again perform a series of ablation experiments. As before, we start with the word+priorpol baseline classifier, add different sets of polarity features, train new classifiers, and compare the results of the new classifiers to the baseline. Increases and decreases for a given metric as compared to the word+priorpol baseline are indicated by + or -, respectively; ++ or --indicates the change is significant at the p < 0.1 level; +++ or ---indicates significance at the p < 0.05 level. Table 16 lists the sets of features tested in each experiment, and Table 17 shows the results of the experiments. Results are reported as they were previously in Section 8.1.2, with increases and decreases compared to the baseline for a given metric indicated by + or -, respectively. Looking at Table 17 , we see that all three sets of polarity features help to increase performance as measured by accuracy and positive and negative F-measures. This is true for all the classification algorithms. As we might expect, including the negation features has the most marked effect on the performance of polarity classification, with statistically significant improvements for most metrics across all the algorithms. 9 The polarity-modification features also seem to be important for polarity classification, in particular for disambiguating the positive instances. For all the algorithms except TiMBL, including the polarity-modification features results in significant improvements for at least one of the positive metrics. The polarity shifters also help classification, but they seem to be the weakest of the features: Including them does not result in significant improvements for any algorithm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 570,
"end": 578,
"text": "Table 16",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 637,
"end": 645,
"text": "Table 17",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 866,
"end": 874,
"text": "Table 17",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature Set Evaluation.",
"sec_num": "8.2.2"
},
{
"text": "Another question that is interesting to consider is how much the word token feature contributes to polarity classification, given all the other polarity features. Is it enough to know the prior polarity of a word, whether it is being negated, and how it is related to other polarity influencers? To answer this question, we train classifiers using all the polarity features except for word token. Table 18 gives the results for these classifiers; for comparison, the results for the all-feature polarity classifiers are also given. Interestingly, excluding the word token feature produces only small changes in the overall results. The results for BoosTexter and Ripper are slightly lower, and the results for SVM are practically unchanged. TiMBL actually shows a slight improvement, with the exception of the both class. This provides further evidence of the strength of the polarity features. Also, a classifier not tied to actual word tokens may potentially be a more domain-independent classifier.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 397,
"end": 405,
"text": "Table 18",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Feature Set Evaluation.",
"sec_num": "8.2.2"
},
{
"text": "The experiments in Section 8.2.1 show that the polarity features perform well under the ideal condition of perfect recognition of polar instances. The next question to consider is how well the polarity features perform under the more natural but less-than-perfect condition of automatic recognition of polar instances. To investigate this, the polarity classifiers (including the baselines) for each algorithm in these experiments start with the polar instances identified by the best performing neutral-polar classifier for that algorithm (from Section 8.1.1). The results for these experiments are given in Table 19 . As before, statistically significant improvements over both baselines are given in bold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 609,
"end": 617,
"text": "Table 19",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Classification Results: Condition 2.",
"sec_num": "8.2.3"
},
{
"text": "How well do the polarity features perform in the presence of noise from misclassified neutral instances? Our first observation comes from comparing Table 15 with Table 19 : Polarity classification results are much lower for all classifiers with the noise of neutral instances. Yet in spite of this, the polarity features still produce classifiers that ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 171,
"text": "Table 15 with Table 19",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Classification Results: Condition 2.",
"sec_num": "8.2.3"
},
{
"text": "Results for polarity classification (step two) using automatically identified polar instances. outperform the baselines. For three of the four algorithms, the classifier using all the polarity features has the highest accuracy. For BoosTexter and TiMBL, the improvements in accuracy over both baselines are significant. Also for all algorithms, using the polarity features gives the highest positive and negative F-measures. Because the set of polarity instances being classified by each algorithm is different, we cannot directly compare the results from one algorithm to the next.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 19",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although the two-step approach to recognizing contextual polarity allows us to focus our investigation on the performance of features for both neutral-polar classification and polarity classification, the question remains: How does the two-step approach compare to recognizing contextual polarity in a single classification step? The results shown in Table 20 help to answer this question. The first row in Table 20 for each algorithm shows the combined result for the two stages of classification. For BoosTexter, TiMBL, and Ripper, this is the combination of results from using all the neutral-polar features for step one, together with the results from using all of the polarity features for step two. 10 For SVM, this is the combination of results from the word+priorpol baseline from step one, together with results for using all the polarity features for step two. Recall that the word+priorpol classifier was the best neutral-polar classifier for SVM (see Table 11 ). The second rows for BoosTexter, TiMBL, and Ripper show the results of a single classifier trained to recognize contextual polarity using all the neutral-polar and polarity features together. For SVM, the second row shows the results of classifying the contextual polarity using just the word token feature. This classifier outperformed all others for SVM. In the table, the best result for each metric for each algorithm is highlighted in bold.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 351,
"end": 359,
"text": "Table 20",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 415,
"text": "Table 20",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 971,
"text": "Table 11",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Two-step versus One-step Recognition of Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8.3"
},
{
"text": "When comparing the two-step and one-step approaches, contrary to our expectations, we see that the one-step approach performs about as well or better than the two-step approach for recognizing contextual polarity. For SVM, the improvement in accuracy achieved by the two-step approach is significant, but this is not true for the other algorithms. One fairly consistent difference between the two approaches is that the two-step approach scores slightly higher for neutral F-measure, and the onestep approach achieves higher F-measures for the polarity classes. The difference in negative F-measure is significant for BoosTexter, TiMBL, and Ripper. The exception to this is SVM. For SVM, the two-step approach achieves significantly higher positive and negative F-measures.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Two-step versus One-step Recognition of Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8.3"
},
{
"text": "One last question we consider is how much the neutral-polar features contribute to the performance of the one-step classifiers. The third line in Table 20 for BoosTexter, TiMBL, and Ripper gives the results for a one-step classifier trained without the neutralpolar features. Although the differences are not always large, excluding the neutralpolar features consistently degrades performance in terms of accuracy and positive, negative, and neutral F-measures. The drop in negative F-measure is significant for all three algorithms, the drop in neutral F-measure is significant for BoosTexter and TiMBL, and the drop in accuracy is significant for TiMBL and Ripper (and for BoosTexter at the p \u2264 0.1 level).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 154,
"text": "Table 20",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Two-step versus One-step Recognition of Contextual Polarity",
"sec_num": "8.3"
},
{
"text": "Results for contextual polarity classification for both two-step and one-step approaches. The modest drop in performance that we see when excluding the neutral-polar features in the one-step approach seems to suggest that discriminating between neutral and polar instances is helpful but not necessarily crucial. However, consider Figure 3 . In this figure, we show the F-measures for the positive, negative, and both classes for the BoosTexter polarity classifier that uses the gold-standard neutral/polar instances (from Table 15 ) and for the BoosTexter one-step polarity classifier that uses all features (from Table 20 ). Plotting the same sets of results for the other three algorithms produces very similar figures. The difference when the classifiers have to contend with the noise from neutral instances is dramatic. Although Table 20 shows that there is room for improvement across all the contextual polarity classes, Figure 3 shows us that perhaps the best way to achieve these improvements is to improve the ability to discriminate the neutral class from the others.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 331,
"end": 339,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 523,
"end": 531,
"text": "Table 15",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 623,
"text": "Table 20",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 835,
"end": 843,
"text": "Table 20",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 929,
"end": 937,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Table 20",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Chart showing the positive, negative, and both class F-measures for the BoosTexter classifier that uses the gold-standard neutral/polar classes and the BoosTexter one-step classifier that uses all the features.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Figure 3",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Other researchers who have worked on classifying the contextual polarity of sentiment expressions are Yi et al. (2003) , Popescu and Etzioni (2005) , and Suzuki, Takamura, and Okumura (2006) . Yi et al. use a lexicon and manually developed patterns to classify contextual polarity. Their patterns are high-quality, yielding quite high precision over the set of expressions that they evaluate. Popescu and Etzioni use an unsupervised classification technique called relaxation labeling (Hummel and Zucker 1983) to recognize the contextual polarity of words that are at the heads of select opinion phrases. They take an iterative approach, using relaxation labeling first to determine the contextual polarities of the words, then again to label the polarities of the words with respect to their targets. A third stage of relaxation labeling then is used to assign final polarities to the words, taking into consideration the presence of other polarity terms and negation. As we do, Popescu and Etzioni use features that represent conjunctions and dependency relations between polarity words. Suzuki et al. use a bootstrapping approach to classify the polarity of tuples of adjectives and their target nouns in Japanese blogs. Included in the features that they use are the words that modify the adjectives and the word that the adjective modifies. They consider the effect of a single negation term, the Japanese equivalent of not.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 118,
"text": "Yi et al. (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF44"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 147,
"text": "Popescu and Etzioni (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 190,
"text": "and Suzuki, Takamura, and Okumura (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF31"
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 509,
"text": "(Hummel and Zucker 1983)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.1"
},
{
"text": "Our work in recognizing contextual polarity differs from this research on expression-level sentiment analysis in several ways. First, the set of expressions they evaluate is limited either to those that target specific items of interest, such as products and product features, or to tuples of adjectives and nouns. In contrast, we seek to classify the contextual polarity of all instances of words from a large lexicon of subjectivity clues that appear in the corpus. Included in the lexicon are not only adjectives, but nouns, verbs, adverbs, and even modals.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.1"
},
{
"text": "Our work also differs from other research in the variety of features that we use. As other researchers do, we consider negation and the words that directly modify or are modified by the expression being classified. However, with negation, we have features for both local and longer-distance types of negation, and we take care to count negation terms only when they are actually being used to negate, excluding, for example, negation terms when they are used in phrases that intensify (e.g., not only). We also include contextual features to capture the presence of other clue instances in the surrounding sentences, and features that represent the reliability of clues from the lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.1"
},
{
"text": "Finally, a unique aspect of the work presented in this article is the evaluation of different features for recognizing contextual polarity. We first presented the features explored in this research in Wilson, Wiebe, and Hoffman (2005) , but this work significantly extends that initial evaluation. We explore the performance of features across different learning algorithms, and we evaluate not only features for discriminating between positive and negative polarity, but features for determining when a word is or is not expressing a sentiment in the first place (neutral in context). This is also the first work to evaluate the effect of neutral instances on the performance of features for discriminating between positive and negative contextual polarity.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 234,
"text": "Wilson, Wiebe, and Hoffman (2005)",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Phrase-Level Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.1"
},
{
"text": "Recognizing contextual polarity is just one facet of the research in automatic sentiment analysis. Research ranges from work on learning the prior polarity (semantic orientation) of words and phrases (e.g., Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1997; Kamps and Marx 2002; Turney and Littman 2003; Hu and Liu 2004; Kim and Hovy 2004; Esuli and Sebastiani 2005; Takamura, Inui, and Okumura 2005; Popescu and Etzioni 2005; Andreevskaia and Bergler 2006; Esuli and Sebastiani 2006a; Kanayama and Nasukawa 2006) to characterizing the sentiment of documents, such as recognizing inflammatory messages (Spertus 1997) , tracking sentiment over time in online discussions (Tong 2001) , and classifying the sentiment of online messages (e.g., Das and Chen 2001; Koppel and Schler 2006) , customer feedback data (Gamon 2004) , or product and movie reviews (e.g., Turney 2002; Pang, Lee, and Vaithyanathan 2002; Dave, Lawrence, and Pennock 2003; Beineke, Hastie, and Vaithyanathan 2004; Mullen and Collier 2004; Bai, Padman, and Airoldi 2005; Whitelaw, Garg, and Argamon 2005; Kennedy and Inkpen 2006; Koppel and Schler 2006) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 241,
"text": "Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown 1997;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 262,
"text": "Kamps and Marx 2002;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 287,
"text": "Turney and Littman 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF35"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 304,
"text": "Hu and Liu 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 323,
"text": "Kim and Hovy 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 350,
"text": "Esuli and Sebastiani 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 384,
"text": "Takamura, Inui, and Okumura 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 410,
"text": "Popescu and Etzioni 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF25"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 441,
"text": "Andreevskaia and Bergler 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 469,
"text": "Esuli and Sebastiani 2006a;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 497,
"text": "Kanayama and Nasukawa 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 600,
"text": "(Spertus 1997)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF28"
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 665,
"text": "(Tong 2001)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF33"
},
{
"start": 724,
"end": 742,
"text": "Das and Chen 2001;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 766,
"text": "Koppel and Schler 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
},
{
"start": 792,
"end": 804,
"text": "(Gamon 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 855,
"text": "Turney 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF34"
},
{
"start": 856,
"end": 890,
"text": "Pang, Lee, and Vaithyanathan 2002;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 891,
"end": 924,
"text": "Dave, Lawrence, and Pennock 2003;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 925,
"end": 965,
"text": "Beineke, Hastie, and Vaithyanathan 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 966,
"end": 990,
"text": "Mullen and Collier 2004;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF24"
},
{
"start": 991,
"end": 1021,
"text": "Bai, Padman, and Airoldi 2005;",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1055,
"text": "Whitelaw, Garg, and Argamon 2005;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF36"
},
{
"start": 1056,
"end": 1080,
"text": "Kennedy and Inkpen 2006;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1104,
"text": "Koppel and Schler 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Other Research in Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.2"
},
{
"text": "Identifying prior polarity is a different task than recognizing contextual polarity, although the two tasks are complementary. The goal of identifying prior polarity is to automatically acquire the polarity of words or phrases for listing in a lexicon. Our work on recognizing contextual polarity begins with a lexicon of words with established prior polarities and then disambiguates in the corpus the polarity being expressed by the phrases in which instances of those words appear. To make the relationship between that task and ours clearer, some word lists that are used to evaluate methods for recognizing prior polarity (positive and negative word lists from the General Inquirer [Stone et al. 1966 ] and lists of positive and negative adjectives created for evaluation by Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown [1997] ) are included in the prior-polarity lexicon used in our experiments.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 687,
"end": 705,
"text": "[Stone et al. 1966",
"ref_id": "BIBREF29"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 815,
"text": "Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown [1997]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Other Research in Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.2"
},
{
"text": "For the most part, the features explored in this work differ from the ones used to identify prior polarity with just a few exceptions. Using a feature to capture conjunctions between clue instances was motivated in part by the work of Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown (1997) . They use constraints on the co-occurrence in conjunctions of words with similar or opposite polarity to predict the prior polarity of adjectives. Esuli and Sebastiani (2005) consider negation in some of their experiments involving WordNet glosses. Takamura et al. (2005) use negation words and phrases, including phrases such as lack of that are members in our lists of polarity shifters, and conjunctive expressions that they collect from corpora. Esuli and Sebastiani (2006a) is the only work in prior-polarity identification to include a neutral (objective) category and to consider a three-way classification between positive, negative, and neutral words. Although identifying prior polarity is a different task, they report a finding similar to ours, namely, that accuracy is lower when neutral words are included.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 235,
"end": 270,
"text": "Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown (1997)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 446,
"text": "Esuli and Sebastiani (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 543,
"text": "Takamura et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF32"
},
{
"start": 722,
"end": 750,
"text": "Esuli and Sebastiani (2006a)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Other Research in Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.2"
},
{
"text": "Some research in sentiment analysis classifies the sentiments of sentences. Morinaga et al. (2002) , Yu and Hatzivassiloglou (2003) , Kim and Hovy (2004) , Hu and Liu (2004) , and Grefenstette et al. (2004) 11 all begin by first creating prior-polarity lexicons. Yu and Hatzivassiloglou then assign a sentiment to a sentence by averaging the prior semantic orientations of instances of lexicon words in the sentence. Thus, they do not identify the contextual polarity of individual phrases containing clue instances, which is the focus of this work. Morinaga et al. only consider the positive or negative clue instance in each sentence that is closest to some target reference; Kim and Hovy, Hu and Liu, and Grefenstette et al. multiply or count the prior polarities of clue instances in the sentence.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 98,
"text": "Morinaga et al. (2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF23"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 131,
"text": "Yu and Hatzivassiloglou (2003)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF45"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 153,
"text": "Kim and Hovy (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF20"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 173,
"text": "Hu and Liu (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 206,
"text": "Grefenstette et al. (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 736,
"text": "Kim and Hovy, Hu and Liu, and Grefenstette et al. multiply",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Other Research in Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.2"
},
{
"text": "These researchers also consider local negation to reverse polarity, with Morinaga et al. also taking into account the negating effect of words like insufficient. However, they do not use the other types of features that we consider in our experiments. Kaji and Kitsuregawa (2006) take a different approach to recognizing positive and negative sentences. They bootstrap from information easily obtained in \"Pro\" and \"Con\" HTML tables and lists, and from one high-precision linguistic pattern, to automatically construct a large corpus of positive and negative sentences. They then use this corpus to train a naive Bayes sentence classifier. In contrast to our work, sentiment classification in all of this research is restricted to identifying only positive and negative sentences (excluding our both and neutral categories). In addition, only one sentiment is assigned per sentence; our system assigns contextual polarity to individual expressions, which would allow for a sentence to be assigned to multiple sentiment categories. As we saw when exploring the contextual polarity annotations, it is not uncommon for sentences to contain more than one sentiment expression.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 252,
"end": 279,
"text": "Kaji and Kitsuregawa (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Other Research in Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.2"
},
{
"text": "Classifying the sentiment of documents is a very different task than recognizing the contextual polarity of words and phrases. However, some researchers have reported findings about document-level classification that are similar to our findings about phrase-level classification. Bai et al. (2005) argue that dependencies among key sentiment terms are important for classifying document sentiment. Similarly, we show that features for capturing when clue instances modify each other are important for phrase-level classification, in particular, for identifying positive expressions. Gamon (2004) achieves his best results for document classification using a wide variety of features, including rich linguistic features, such as features that capture constituent structure, features that combine part-of-speech and semantic relations (e.g., sentence subject or negated context), and features that capture tense information. We also achieve our best results for phrase-level classification using a wide variety of features, many of which are linguistically rich. Kennedy and Inkpen (2006) report consistently higher results for document sentiment classification when select polarity influencers, including negators and intensifiers, are included. 12 Koppel and Schler (2006) demonstrate the importance of neutral examples for document-level classification. In this work, we show that being able to correctly identify neutral instances is also very important for phraselevel sentiment analysis.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 280,
"end": 297,
"text": "Bai et al. (2005)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 583,
"end": 595,
"text": "Gamon (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
},
{
"start": 1061,
"end": 1086,
"text": "Kennedy and Inkpen (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1247,
"text": "12",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1248,
"end": 1272,
"text": "Koppel and Schler (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF21"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Other Research in Sentiment Analysis",
"sec_num": "9.2"
},
{
"text": "Being able to determine automatically the contextual polarity of words and phrases is an important problem in sentiment analysis. In the research presented in this article, we tackle this problem and show that it is much more complex than simply determining whether a word or phrase is positive or negative. In our analysis of a corpus with annotations of subjective expressions and their contextual polarity, we find that positive and negative words from a lexicon are used in neutral contexts much more often than they are used in expressions of the opposite polarity. The importance of identifying when contextual polarity is neutral is further revealed in our classification experiments: When neutral instances are excluded, the performance of features for distinguishing between positive and negative polarity greatly improves.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "10."
},
{
"text": "A focus of this research is on understanding which features are important for recognizing contextual polarity. We experiment with a wide variety of linguistically motivated features, and we evaluate the performance of these features using several different machine learning algorithms. Features for distinguishing between neutral and polar instances are evaluated, as well as features for distinguishing between positive and negative contextual polarity. For classifying neutral and polar instances, we find that, although some features produce significant improvements over the baseline in terms of polar or neutral recall or precision, it is the combination of features together that is needed to achieve significant improvements in accuracy. For classifying positive and negative contextual polarity, features for capturing negation prove to be the most important. However, we find that features that also perform well are those that capture when a word is (or is not) modifying or being modified by other polarity terms. This suggests that identifying features that represent more complex interdependencies between polarity clues will be an important avenue for future research.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "10."
},
{
"text": "Another direction for future work will be to expand our lexicon using existing techniques for acquiring the prior polarity of words and phrases. It follows that a larger lexicon will have a greater coverage of sentiment expressions. However, expanding the lexicon with automatically acquired prior-polarity tags may result in an even greater proportion of neutral instances to contend with. Given the degradation in performance created by the neutral instances, whether expanding the lexicon automatically will result in improved performance for recognizing contextual polarity is an empirical question.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "10."
},
{
"text": "Finally, the overall goal of our research is to use phrase-level sentiment analysis in higher-level NLP tasks, such as opinion question answering and summarization.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and Future Work",
"sec_num": "10."
},
{
"text": "It is open to question whether reason should be listed as positive in a sentiment lexicon, because the more frequent senses of reason involve intention, not sentiment. However, any existing sentiment lexicon one would start with will have some noise and errors. The task in this article is to disambiguate instances of the entries in a given sentiment lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Available at http://nrrc.mitre.org/NRRC/publications.htm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Some sentences contain additional subjective expressions that are not underlined as examples.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Both annotators are authors of this article. 5 The revised version of the MPQA corpus with the contextual polarity annotations is available at http://www.cs.pitt.edu/mpqa. 6 The third annotator received training until her reliability of performance on the task was comparable to that of the first two annotators who participated in the study.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "In the end, about 70% of the words from the General Inquirer positive word list and 80% of the words from the negative word list were included in the subjectivity lexicon.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "We decided on a different polarity for about 80 of the words in our lexicon that appeared on other positive and negative word lists.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Although the negation features give the best performance improvements of the three feature sets, these classifiers still do not perform as well as the respective all-feature polarity classifiers for each algorithm.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "To clarify, Section 8.2.3 only reported results for instances identified as polar in step one. Here, we report results for all clue instances, including the instances classified as neutral in step one.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "InGrefenstette et al. (2004), the units that are classified are fixed windows around named entities rather than sentences.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Das and Chen (2001),Pang, Lee, and Vaithyanathan (2002), andDave, Lawrence, and Pennock (2003) also represent negation. In their experiments, words which follow a negation term are tagged with a negation marker and then treated as new words. Pang, Lee and Vaithyanathan report that representing negation in this way slightly helps their results, whereas Dave, Lawrence, and Pennock report a slightly detrimental effect.Whitelaw, Garg, and Argamon (2005) also represent negation terms and intensifiers. However, in their experiments, the effect of negation is not separately evaluated, and intensifiers are not found to be beneficial.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by an Andrew Mellow Predoctoral Fellowship, by the NSF under grant IIS-0208798, by the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), and by the European IST Programme through the AMIDA Integrated Project FP6-0033812.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgments",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Mining WordNet for fuzzy sentiment: Sentiment tag extraction from WordNet glosses",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alina",
"middle": [],
"last": "Andreevskaia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Sabine",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bergler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-2006)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "209--216",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andreevskaia, Alina and Sabine Bergler. 2006. Mining WordNet for fuzzy sentiment: Sentiment tag extraction from WordNet glosses. In Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-2006), pages 209-216, Trento. Bai, Xue, Rema Padman, and Edoardo Airoldi. 2005. On learning parsimonious models for extracting consumer opinions. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'05) -Track 3, page 75.2, Waikoloa, HI.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "The sentimental factor: Improving review classification via human-provided information",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ann",
"middle": [],
"last": "Banfield",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kegan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Routledge",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Paul",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Boston",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Beineke",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Trevor",
"middle": [],
"last": "Philip",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shivakumar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hastie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vaithyanathan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1982,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "263--270",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Banfield, Ann. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences. Routledge and Kegan Paul, Boston. Beineke, Philip, Trevor Hastie, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2004. The sentimental factor: Improving review classification via human-provided information. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-04), pages 263-270, Barcelona.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Learning trees and rules with set-valued features",
"authors": [
{
"first": "William",
"middle": [
"W"
],
"last": "Cohen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1996,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "709--717",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cohen, William W. 1996. Learning trees and rules with set-valued features. In Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 709-717, Portland, OR.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Combined optimization of feature selection and algorithm parameter interaction in machine learning of language",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collins",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-97)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "16--23",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Collins, Michael. 1997. Three generative, lexicalised models for statistical parsing. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-97), pages 16-23, Madrid. Daelemans, Walter, V\u00e9ronique Hoste, Fien De Meulder, and Bart Naudts. 2003a. Combined optimization of feature selection and algorithm parameter interaction in machine learning of language. In Proceedings of the 14th",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML-2003)",
"authors": [],
"year": null,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "84--95",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML-2003), pages 84-95, Cavtat-Dubrovnik.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 5.0 Reference Guide",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Walter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Daelemans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jakub",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zavrel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ko Van Der",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Antal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sloot",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Van Den",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bosch",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Daelemans, Walter, Jakub Zavrel, Ko van der Sloot, and Antal van den Bosch. 2003b. TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 5.0 Reference Guide. ILK Technical Report 03-10, Induction of Linguistic Knowledge Research Group, Tilburg University. Available at http://ilk.uvt. nl/downloads/pub/papers/ilk0310.pdf.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment parsing from small talk on the Web",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sanjiv",
"middle": [],
"last": "Das",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mike",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ranjan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the August 2001 Meeting of the European Finance Association (EFA)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Das, Sanjiv Ranjan and Mike Y. Chen. 2001. Yahoo! for Amazon: Sentiment parsing from small talk on the Web. In Proceedings of the August 2001 Meeting of the European Finance Association (EFA), Barcelona, Spain. Available at http://ssrn.com/ abstract=276189.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Mining the peanut gallery: Opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kushal",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dave",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Steve",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lawrence",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Pennock",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2003)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dave, Kushal, Steve Lawrence, and David M. Pennock. 2003. Mining the peanut gallery: Opinion extraction and semantic classification of product reviews. In Proceedings of the 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW2003), Budapest. Available at http://www2003.org.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Determining the semantic orientation of terms through gloss analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrea",
"middle": [],
"last": "Esuli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fabrizio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sebastiani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM-05)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "617--624",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Esuli, Andrea and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2005. Determining the semantic orientation of terms through gloss analysis. In Proceedings of ACM SIGIR Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM-05), pages 617-624, Bremen.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Determining term subjectivity and term orientation for opinion mining",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrea",
"middle": [],
"last": "Esuli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fabrizio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sebastiani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings the 11th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-2006)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "193--200",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Esuli, Andrea and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2006a. Determining term subjectivity and term orientation for opinion mining. In Proceedings the 11th Meeting of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-2006), pages 193-200, Trento.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "SentiWordNet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrea",
"middle": [],
"last": "Esuli",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fabrizio",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sebastiani",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of LREC-06, the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--422",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Esuli, Andrea and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2006b. SentiWordNet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In Proceedings of LREC-06, the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 417-422, Genoa.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Sentiment classification on customer feedback data: Noisy data, large feature vectors, and the role of linguistic analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gamon",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "611--617",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Gamon, Michael. 2004. Sentiment classification on customer feedback data: Noisy data, large feature vectors, and the role of linguistic analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004), pages 611-617, Geneva.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Coupling niche browsers and affect analysis for an opinion mining application",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Gregory",
"middle": [],
"last": "Grefenstette",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Qu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "James",
"middle": [
"G"
],
"last": "Shanahan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Evans",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kathy",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-97)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "174--181",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Grefenstette, Gregory, Yan Qu, James G. Shanahan, and David A. Evans. 2004. Coupling niche browsers and affect analysis for an opinion mining application. In Proceedings of the Conference Recherche d'Information Assistee par Ordinateur (RIAO-2004), pages 186-194, Avignon. Hatzivassiloglou, Vasileios and Kathy McKeown. 1997. Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-97), pages 174-181, Madrid.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Optimization Issues in Machine Learning of Coreference Resolution",
"authors": [
{
"first": "V\u00e9ronique",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hoste",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hoste, V\u00e9ronique. 2005. Optimization Issues in Machine Learning of Coreference Resolution. Ph.D. thesis, Language Technology Group, University of Antwerp.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Mining and summarizing customer reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Minqing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "168--177",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hu, Minqing and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2004 (KDD-2004), pages 168-177, Seattle, WA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "On the foundations of relaxation labeling processes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"A"
],
"last": "Hummel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Steven",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zucker",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1983,
"venue": "IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI)",
"volume": "5",
"issue": "3",
"pages": "167--187",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hummel, Robert A. and Steven W. Zucker. 1983. On the foundations of relaxation labeling processes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 5(3):167-187.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Making large-scale SVM learning practical",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Advances in Kernel Methods -Support Vector Learning",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "169--184",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Joachims, Thorsten. 1999. Making large-scale SVM learning practical. In B. Scholkopf, C. Burgess, and A. Smola, editors, Advances in Kernel Methods -Support Vector Learning, pages 169-184. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Automatic construction of polarity-tagged corpus from HTML documents",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Nobuhiro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kaji",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Masaru",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kitsuregawa",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "332--341",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kaji, Nobuhiro and Masaru Kitsuregawa. 2006. Automatic construction of polarity-tagged corpus from HTML documents. In Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions, pages 452-459, Sydney. Kamps, Jaap and Maarten Marx. 2002. Words with attitude. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Global WordNet, pages 332-341, Mysore.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Fully automatic lexicon expansion for domain-oriented sentiment analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hiroshi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kanayama",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tetsuya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nasukawa",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2006)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "355--363",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kanayama, Hiroshi and Tetsuya Nasukawa. 2006. Fully automatic lexicon expansion for domain-oriented sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2006), pages 355-363, Sydney.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Sentiment classification of movie reviews using contextual valence shifters",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Alistair",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kennedy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Diana",
"middle": [],
"last": "Inkpen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Computational Intelligence",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "110--125",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kennedy, Alistair and Diana Inkpen. 2006. Sentiment classification of movie reviews using contextual valence shifters. Computational Intelligence, 22(2):110-125.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF20": {
"ref_id": "b20",
"title": "Determining the sentiment of opinions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Soo-Min",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kim",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Eduard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hovy",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1267--1373",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Kim, Soo-Min and Eduard Hovy. 2004. Determining the sentiment of opinions. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2004), pages 1267-1373, Geneva.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF21": {
"ref_id": "b21",
"title": "The importance of neutral examples for learning sentiment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Moshe",
"middle": [],
"last": "Koppel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jonathan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Schler",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Computational Intelligence",
"volume": "22",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "100--109",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Koppel, Moshe and Jonathan Schler. 2006. The importance of neutral examples for learning sentiment. Computational Intelligence, 22(2):100-109.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF22": {
"ref_id": "b22",
"title": "New Directions in Question Answering",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [
"T"
],
"last": "Maybury",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "American Association for Artificial Intelligence",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Maybury, Mark T., editor. 2004. New Directions in Question Answering. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF23": {
"ref_id": "b23",
"title": "Mining product reputations on the Web",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Satoshi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Morinaga",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yamanishi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kenji",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tateishi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Toshikazu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fukushima",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-2002)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "341--349",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Morinaga, Satoshi, Kenji Yamanishi, Kenji Tateishi, and Toshikazu Fukushima. 2002. Mining product reputations on the Web. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-2002), pages 341-349, Edmonton.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF24": {
"ref_id": "b24",
"title": "Sentiment analysis using support vector machines with diverse information sources",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Tony",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mullen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Nigel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Collier",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [],
"last": "Barcelona",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tetsuya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nasukawa",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jeonghee",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yi",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2004)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "79--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Mullen, Tony and Nigel Collier. 2004. Sentiment analysis using support vector machines with diverse information sources. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2004), pages 412-418, Barcelona. Nasukawa, Tetsuya and Jeonghee Yi. 2003. Sentiment analysis: Capturing favorability using natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2003), pages 70-77, Sanibel Island, FL. Pang, Bo, Lillian Lee, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2002. Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2002), pages 79-86, Philadelphia, PA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF25": {
"ref_id": "b25",
"title": "Extracting product features and opinions from reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Livia",
"middle": [],
"last": "Polanyi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Annie",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zaenen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": ";",
"middle": [],
"last": "Popescu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ana-Maria",
"middle": [],
"last": "",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Oren",
"middle": [],
"last": "Etzioni",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1985,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies Conference/Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "339--346",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Polanyi, Livia and Annie Zaenen. 2004. Contextual valence shifters. In Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text: Theories and Applications, pages 106-111, The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA. Popescu, Ana-Maria and Oren Etzioni. 2005. Extracting product features and opinions from reviews. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies Conference/Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005), pages 339-346, Vancouver. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffry Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman, New York.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF26": {
"ref_id": "b26",
"title": "Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ellen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riloff",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2003)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "105--112",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Riloff, Ellen and Janyce Wiebe. 2003. Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2003), pages 105-112, Sapporo.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF27": {
"ref_id": "b27",
"title": "BoosTexter: A boosting-based system for text categorization",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Robert",
"middle": [
"E"
],
"last": "Schapire",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Yoram",
"middle": [],
"last": "Singer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "Machine Learning",
"volume": "39",
"issue": "",
"pages": "135--168",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Schapire, Robert E. and Yoram Singer. 2000. BoosTexter: A boosting-based system for text categorization. Machine Learning, 39(2/3):135-168.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF28": {
"ref_id": "b28",
"title": "Smokey: Automatic recognition of hostile messages",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ellen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Spertus",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-97)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1058--1065",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Spertus, Ellen. 1997. Smokey: Automatic recognition of hostile messages. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-97), pages 1058-1065, Providence, RI.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF29": {
"ref_id": "b29",
"title": "The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Philip",
"middle": [
"J"
],
"last": "Stone",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dexter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Marshall",
"middle": [
"S"
],
"last": "Dunphy",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Daniel",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Smith",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ogilvie",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1966,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stone, Philip J., Dexter C. Dunphy, Marshall S. Smith, and Daniel M. Ogilvie. 1966. The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF30": {
"ref_id": "b30",
"title": "Multi-perspective question answering using the OpQA corpus",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Veselin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Stoyanov",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cardie",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies Conference/ Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "923--930",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Stoyanov, Veselin, Claire Cardie, and Janyce Wiebe. 2005. Multi-perspective question answering using the OpQA corpus. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies Conference/ Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005), pages 923-930, Vancouver.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF31": {
"ref_id": "b31",
"title": "Application of semi-supervised learning to evaluative expression classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yasuhiro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Suzuki",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Hiroya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Takamura",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manabu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Okumura",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2006)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "502--513",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Suzuki, Yasuhiro, Hiroya Takamura, and Manabu Okumura. 2006. Application of semi-supervised learning to evaluative expression classification. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2006), pages 502-513, Mexico City.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF32": {
"ref_id": "b32",
"title": "Extracting emotional polarity of words using spin model",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hiroya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Takamura",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Takashi",
"middle": [],
"last": "Inui",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Manabu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Okumura",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-05)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "133--140",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Takamura, Hiroya, Takashi Inui, and Manabu Okumura. 2005. Extracting emotional polarity of words using spin model. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-05), pages 133-140, Ann Arbor, MI.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF33": {
"ref_id": "b33",
"title": "An operational system for detecting and tracking opinions in online discussions",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Richard",
"middle": [],
"last": "Tong",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Working Notes of the SIGIR Workshop on Operational Text Classification",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--6",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Tong, Richard. 2001. An operational system for detecting and tracking opinions in online discussions. In Working Notes of the SIGIR Workshop on Operational Text Classification, pages 1-6, New Orleans, LA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF34": {
"ref_id": "b34",
"title": "Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--424",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Turney, Peter. 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-02), pages 417-424, Philadelphia, PA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF35": {
"ref_id": "b35",
"title": "Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Peter",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Littman",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS)",
"volume": "21",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "315--346",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Turney, Peter and Michael L. Littman. 2003. Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 21(4):315-346.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF36": {
"ref_id": "b36",
"title": "Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Casey",
"middle": [],
"last": "Whitelaw",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Navendu",
"middle": [],
"last": "Garg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shlomo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Argamon",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Wilson, Wiebe, and Hoffmann Recognizing Contextual Polarity Management (CIKM-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "625--631",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Whitelaw, Casey, Navendu Garg, and Shlomo Argamon. 2005. Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Wilson, Wiebe, and Hoffmann Recognizing Contextual Polarity Management (CIKM-2005), pages 625-631, Bremen.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF37": {
"ref_id": "b37",
"title": "Tracking point of view in narrative",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1994,
"venue": "Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "20",
"issue": "2",
"pages": "233--287",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wiebe, Janyce. 1994. Tracking point of view in narrative. Computational Linguistics, 20(2):233-287.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF38": {
"ref_id": "b38",
"title": "Development and use of a gold standard data set for subjectivity classifications",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bruce",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Thomas O'",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hara",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1999,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-99)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "246--253",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wiebe, Janyce, Rebecca Bruce, and Thomas O'Hara. 1999. Development and use of a gold standard data set for subjectivity classifications. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-99), pages 246-253, College Park, MD.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF39": {
"ref_id": "b39",
"title": "Word sense and subjectivity",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rada",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mihalcea",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1065--1072",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wiebe, Janyce and Rada Mihalcea. 2006. Word sense and subjectivity. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1065-1072, Sydney.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF40": {
"ref_id": "b40",
"title": "Creating subjective and objective sentence classifiers from unannotated texts",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ellen",
"middle": [],
"last": "Riloff",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "486--497",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wiebe, Janyce and Ellen Riloff. 2005. Creating subjective and objective sentence classifiers from unannotated texts. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (CICLing-2005), pages 486-497, Mexico City.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF41": {
"ref_id": "b41",
"title": "Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation (formerly",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Theresa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wilson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Claire",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cardie",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Computers and the Humanities)",
"volume": "39",
"issue": "2/3",
"pages": "164--210",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wiebe, Janyce, Theresa Wilson, and Claire Cardie. 2005. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation (formerly Computers and the Humanities), 39(2/3):164-210.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF42": {
"ref_id": "b42",
"title": "Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Theresa",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wilson",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Paul",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hoffmann",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies Conference/ Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "347--354",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Wilson, Theresa, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies Conference/ Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (HLT/EMNLP-2005), pages 347-354, Vancouver.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF43": {
"ref_id": "b43",
"title": "Converting dependency structures to phrase structures",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Fei",
"middle": [],
"last": "Xia",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Martha",
"middle": [],
"last": "Palmer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2001,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference (HLT-2001)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--5",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Xia, Fei and Martha Palmer. 2001. Converting dependency structures to phrase structures. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference (HLT-2001), pages 1-5, San Diego, CA.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF44": {
"ref_id": "b44",
"title": "Sentiment analyzer: Extracting sentiments about a given topic using natural language processing techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Jeonghee",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Tetsuya",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nasukawa",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Razvan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bunescu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Wayne",
"middle": [],
"last": "Niblack",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'03)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "427--434",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yi, Jeonghee, Tetsuya Nasukawa, Razvan Bunescu, and Wayne Niblack. 2003. Sentiment analyzer: Extracting sentiments about a given topic using natural language processing techniques. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM'03), pages 427-434, Melbourne, FL.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF45": {
"ref_id": "b45",
"title": "Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hong",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Vasileios",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hatzivassiloglou",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2003,
"venue": "Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2003)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "129--136",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yu, Hong and Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou. 2003. Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-2003), pages 129-136, Sapporo.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"text": "Thousands of coup supporters celebrated (positive) overnight, waving flags, blowing whistles . . . (8) The criteria set by Rice are the following: the three countries in question are repressive (negative) and grave human rights violators (negative) . . . (9) Besides, politicians refer to good and evil (both) only for purposes of intimidation and exaggeration.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"text": "Figure 2 The dependency tree for the sentence The human rights report poses a substantial challenge to the U.S. interpretation of good and evil. Prior polarity and reliability class are marked in parentheses for words that match clues from the lexicon.",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"type_str": "figure",
"num": null,
"text": "for a given metric as compared to the word+priorpol baseline (word baseline for Ripper) are indicated by + or -, respectively; ++ or --indicates the change is significant at the p < 0.1 level; +++ or ---indicates significance at the p < 0.05 level; nc indicates no change.",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>victory of justice and freedom</td><td>such a disadvantageous situation</td></tr><tr><td>grown tremendously</td><td>must</td></tr><tr><td>such animosity</td><td>not true at all</td></tr><tr><td>throttling the voice</td><td>imperative for harmonious society</td></tr><tr><td>disdain and wrath</td><td>glorious</td></tr><tr><td>so exciting</td><td>disastrous consequences</td></tr><tr><td>could not have wished for a better situation</td><td>believes</td></tr><tr><td>freak show</td><td>the embodiment of two-sided justice</td></tr><tr><td>if you're not with us, you're against us</td><td>appalling</td></tr><tr><td>vehemently denied</td><td>very definitely</td></tr><tr><td>everything good and nice</td><td>once and for all</td></tr><tr><td>under no circumstances</td><td>shameful mum</td></tr><tr><td>most fraudulent, terrorist and extremist</td><td>enthusiastically asked</td></tr><tr><td>number one democracy</td><td>hate</td></tr><tr><td>seems to think</td><td>gross misstatement</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">indulging in blood-shed and their lunaticism surprised, to put it mildly</td></tr><tr><td>take justice to pre-historic times</td><td>unconditionally and without delay</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">so conservative that it makes Pat Buchanan look vegetarian</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">those digging graves for others, get engraved themselves</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">lost the reputation of commitment to principles of human justice</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">ultimately the demon they have reared will eat up their own vitals</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Sample of subjective expressions from the MPQA corpus."
},
"TABREF1": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td>Positive sentiments</td><td>Negative sentiments</td></tr><tr><td>Emotion</td><td>I'm happy</td><td>I'm sad</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">Evaluation Great idea!</td><td>Bad idea!</td></tr><tr><td>Stance</td><td colspan=\"2\">She supports the bill She's against the bill</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Examples of positive and negative sentiments."
},
"TABREF2": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"5\">Neutral Positive Negative Both Total</td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>123</td><td>14</td><td>24</td><td>0</td><td>161</td></tr><tr><td>Positive</td><td>16</td><td>73</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>9 6</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>14</td><td>2</td><td>167</td><td>1</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Both</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>153</td><td>92</td><td>196</td><td>6</td><td>447</td></tr><tr><td>Table 4</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">Contingency table for contextual polarity agreement, borderline cases removed.</td></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"5\">Neutral Positive Negative Both Total</td></tr><tr><td>Neutral</td><td>113</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>0</td><td>128</td></tr><tr><td>Positive</td><td>9</td><td>59</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>7 1</td></tr><tr><td>Negative</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>156</td><td>1</td><td>164</td></tr><tr><td>Both</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>127</td><td>70</td><td>167</td><td>3</td><td>367</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Contingency table for contextual polarity agreement."
},
"TABREF3": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td colspan=\"4\">Neutral Positive Negative Both</td><td>Total</td></tr><tr><td>9,057</td><td>3,311</td><td>7,294</td><td>299</td><td>19,961</td></tr><tr><td>45.4%</td><td>16.6%</td><td>36.5%</td><td colspan=\"2\">1.5% 100%</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Distribution of contextual polarity tags."
},
"TABREF5": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Word Features</td></tr><tr><td>word token</td></tr><tr><td>word part of speech</td></tr><tr><td>previous word part of speech</td></tr><tr><td>next word part of speech</td></tr><tr><td>prior polarity: positive, negative, both, neutral</td></tr><tr><td>reliability class: strongsubj or weaksubj</td></tr><tr><td>General Modification Features</td></tr><tr><td>preceded by adjective: binary</td></tr><tr><td>preceded by adverb (other than not): binary</td></tr><tr><td>preceded by intensifier: binary</td></tr><tr><td>self intensifier: binary</td></tr><tr><td>modifies strongsubj: binary</td></tr><tr><td>modifies weaksubj: binary</td></tr><tr><td>modified by strongsubj: binary</td></tr><tr><td>modified by weaksubj: binary</td></tr><tr><td>Polarity Modification Features</td></tr><tr><td>modifies polarity: Structure Features</td></tr><tr><td>in subject: binary</td></tr><tr><td>in copular: binary</td></tr><tr><td>in passive: binary</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Features for neutral-polar classification. positive, negative, neutral, both, notmod modified by polarity: positive, negative, neutral, both, notmod conjunction polarity: positive, negative, neutral, both, notmod"
},
"TABREF6": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Topic</td><td>Description</td></tr><tr><td>argentina</td><td>Economic collapse in Argentina</td></tr><tr><td>axisofevil</td><td>U.S. President's State of the Union Address</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">guantanamo Detention of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">humanrights U.S. State Department Human Rights Report</td></tr><tr><td>kyoto</td><td>Kyoto Protocol ratification</td></tr><tr><td>settlements</td><td>Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank</td></tr><tr><td>space</td><td>Space missions of various countries</td></tr><tr><td>taiwan</td><td>Relationship between Taiwan and China</td></tr><tr><td>venezuela</td><td>Presidential coup in Venezuela</td></tr><tr><td>zimbabwe</td><td>Presidential election in Zimbabwe</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Topics in the MPQA corpus."
},
"TABREF7": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Word Features</td></tr><tr><td>word token</td></tr><tr><td>word prior polarity: positive, negative, both, neutral</td></tr><tr><td>Negation Features</td></tr><tr><td>negated: binary</td></tr><tr><td>negated subject: binary</td></tr><tr><td>Polarity Modification Features</td></tr><tr><td>modifies polarity: positive, negative, neutral, both, notmod</td></tr><tr><td>modified by polarity: positive, negative, neutral, both, notmod</td></tr><tr><td>conj polarity: positive, negative, neutral, both, notmod</td></tr><tr><td>Polarity Shifters</td></tr><tr><td>general polarity shifter: binary</td></tr><tr><td>negative polarity shifter: binary</td></tr><tr><td>positive polarity shifter: binary</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Features for polarity classification."
},
"TABREF8": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Algorithm</td><td>Settings</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">BoosTexter 2,000 rounds of boosting</td></tr><tr><td>TiMBL</td><td>k=25, MVDM distance metric</td></tr><tr><td>Ripper</td><td>-!n, -S 0.5</td></tr><tr><td>SVM</td><td>linear kernel</td></tr><tr><td>8.1.1</td><td/></tr></table>",
"text": "Algorithm settings for neutral-polar classification. Classification Results. The results for the first set of experiments are given in"
},
"TABREF10": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Experiment</td><td>Features</td></tr><tr><td>PARTS-OF-SPEECH</td><td>parts of speech for clue instance, previous word, and next word</td></tr><tr><td>RELIABILITY-CLASS</td><td>reliability class of clue instance</td></tr><tr><td>PRECEDED-POS</td><td>preceded by adjective, preceded by adverb</td></tr><tr><td>INTENSIFY</td><td>preceded by intensifier, self intensifier</td></tr><tr><td>RELCLASS-MOD</td><td>modifies strongsubj/weaksubj, modified by strongsubj/weaksubj</td></tr><tr><td>POLARITY-MOD</td><td>polarity-modification features</td></tr><tr><td>STRUCTURE</td><td>structure features</td></tr><tr><td>CURSENT-COUNTS</td><td>strongsubj/weaksubj clue instances in sentence</td></tr><tr><td>PNSENT-COUNTS</td><td>strongsubj/weaksubj clue instances in previous/next sentence</td></tr><tr><td>CURSENT-OTHER</td><td>adjectives/adverbs/cardinal number/pronoun/modal in sentence</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Neutral-polar feature sets for evaluation."
},
"TABREF11": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Polar Neut</td><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Polar Neut</td></tr><tr><td>BoosTexter</td><td>Acc</td><td>F</td><td>F</td><td>Ripper</td><td>Acc</td><td>F</td><td>F</td></tr><tr><td>PARTS-OF-SPEECH</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>PARTS-OF-SPEECH</td><td>+++</td><td>+++</td><td>---</td></tr><tr><td>RELIABILITY-CLASS</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>RELIABILITY-CLASS</td><td>+++</td><td>+++</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>PRECEDED-POS</td><td>nc</td><td>-</td><td>nc</td><td>PRECEDED-POS</td><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>",
"text": "Results for neutral-polar feature ablation experiments."
},
"TABREF13": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td>Experiment</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td>Features</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>NEGATION</td><td colspan=\"4\">negated, negated subject</td><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>POLARITY-MOD</td><td colspan=\"7\">modifies polarity, modified by polarity, conjunction polarity</td></tr><tr><td>SHIFTERS</td><td colspan=\"6\">general, negative, positive polarity shifters</td><td/></tr><tr><td>Table 17</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"6\">Results for polarity feature ablation experiments.</td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td/><td>Positive</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Negative</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td colspan=\"2\">Acc Rec</td><td colspan=\"2\">Prec F</td><td>Rec</td><td colspan=\"2\">Prec F</td></tr><tr><td>BoosTexter</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>NEGATION</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ ++</td><td colspan=\"4\">+++ +++ +++ +</td><td>+++</td></tr><tr><td>POLARITY-MOD</td><td>++</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ +</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ +</td><td>++</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>SHIFTERS</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>TiMBL</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>NEGATION</td><td colspan=\"7\">+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++</td></tr><tr><td>POLARITY-MOD</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>SHIFTERS</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Ripper</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>NEGATION</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ --</td><td colspan=\"4\">+++ +++ +++ -</td><td>+++</td></tr><tr><td>POLARITY-MOD</td><td>+</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ ++</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ +</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>SHIFTERS</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>SVM</td><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>NEGATION</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ -</td><td colspan=\"4\">+++ +++ +++ +</td><td>+++</td></tr><tr><td>POLARITY-MOD</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td colspan=\"2\">+++ +</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>SHIFTERS</td><td>+</td><td>-</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td><td>+</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Polarity feature sets for evaluation."
},
"TABREF14": {
"type_str": "table",
"html": null,
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td colspan=\"4\">Acc Pos F Neg F Both F</td></tr><tr><td>BoosTexter</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">excluding word token 82.5</td><td>74.9</td><td>88.0</td><td>17.4</td></tr><tr><td>all polarity features</td><td>83.2</td><td>75.5</td><td>88.7</td><td>19.4</td></tr><tr><td>TiMBL</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">excluding word token 83.2</td><td>75.9</td><td>88.4</td><td>17.3</td></tr><tr><td>all polarity features</td><td>82.2</td><td>74.3</td><td>88.0</td><td>23.9</td></tr><tr><td>Ripper</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">excluding word token 82.9</td><td>75.4</td><td>88.3</td><td>17.4</td></tr><tr><td>all polarity features</td><td>83.2</td><td>75.6</td><td>88.5</td><td>17.4</td></tr><tr><td>SVM</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">excluding word token 81.5</td><td>72.9</td><td>87.3</td><td>16.8</td></tr><tr><td>all polarity features</td><td>81.6</td><td>72.9</td><td>87.3</td><td>16.9</td></tr></table>",
"text": "Results for polarity classification without and with the word token feature."
}
}
}
} |