File size: 81,252 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 | {
"paper_id": "P11-1014",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T08:48:41.413567Z"
},
"title": "Using Multiple Sources to Construct a Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus for Cross-Domain Sentiment Classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Danushka",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bollegala",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "The University of Tokyo",
"location": {
"addrLine": "7-3-1",
"postCode": "113-8656",
"settlement": "Hongo, Tokyo",
"country": "Japan"
}
},
"email": "danushka@iba.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp"
},
{
"first": "David",
"middle": [],
"last": "Weir",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "d.j.weir@sussex.ac.uk"
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carroll",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {},
"email": "j.a.carroll@sussex.ac.uk"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "We describe a sentiment classification method that is applicable when we do not have any labeled data for a target domain but have some labeled data for multiple other domains, designated as the source domains. We automatically create a sentiment sensitive thesaurus using both labeled and unlabeled data from multiple source domains to find the association between words that express similar sentiments in different domains. The created thesaurus is then used to expand feature vectors to train a binary classifier. Unlike previous cross-domain sentiment classification methods, our method can efficiently learn from multiple source domains. Our method significantly outperforms numerous baselines and returns results that are better than or comparable to previous cross-domain sentiment classification methods on a benchmark dataset containing Amazon user reviews for different types of products.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "P11-1014",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "We describe a sentiment classification method that is applicable when we do not have any labeled data for a target domain but have some labeled data for multiple other domains, designated as the source domains. We automatically create a sentiment sensitive thesaurus using both labeled and unlabeled data from multiple source domains to find the association between words that express similar sentiments in different domains. The created thesaurus is then used to expand feature vectors to train a binary classifier. Unlike previous cross-domain sentiment classification methods, our method can efficiently learn from multiple source domains. Our method significantly outperforms numerous baselines and returns results that are better than or comparable to previous cross-domain sentiment classification methods on a benchmark dataset containing Amazon user reviews for different types of products.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "Users express opinions about products or services they consume in blog posts, shopping sites, or review sites. It is useful for both consumers as well as for producers to know what general public think about a particular product or service. Automatic document level sentiment classification (Pang et al., 2002; Turney, 2002) is the task of classifying a given review with respect to the sentiment expressed by the author of the review. For example, a sentiment classifier might classify a user review about a movie as positive or negative depending on the sentiment expressed in the review. Sentiment classification has been applied in numerous tasks such as opinion mining (Pang and Lee, 2008) , opinion summarization (Lu et al., 2009) , contextual advertising (Fan and Chang, 2010) , and market analysis (Hu and Liu, 2004) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 291,
"end": 310,
"text": "(Pang et al., 2002;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 324,
"text": "Turney, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 694,
"text": "(Pang and Lee, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 736,
"text": "(Lu et al., 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF10"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 783,
"text": "(Fan and Chang, 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 806,
"end": 824,
"text": "(Hu and Liu, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Supervised learning algorithms that require labeled data have been successfully used to build sentiment classifiers for a specific domain (Pang et al., 2002) . However, sentiment is expressed differently in different domains, and it is costly to annotate data for each new domain in which we would like to apply a sentiment classifier. For example, in the domain of reviews about electronics products, the words \"durable\" and \"light\" are used to express positive sentiment, whereas \"expensive\" and \"short battery life\" often indicate negative sentiment. On the other hand, if we consider the books domain the words \"exciting\" and \"thriller\" express positive sentiment, whereas the words \"boring\" and \"lengthy\" usually express negative sentiment. A classifier trained on one domain might not perform well on a different domain because it would fail to learn the sentiment of the unseen words.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 157,
"text": "(Pang et al., 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF14"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "Work in cross-domain sentiment classification (Blitzer et al., 2007) focuses on the challenge of training a classifier from one or more domains (source domains) and applying the trained classifier in a different domain (target domain). A crossdomain sentiment classification system must overcome two main challenges. First, it must identify which source domain features are related to which target domain features. Second, it requires a learning framework to incorporate the information re-132 garding the relatedness of source and target domain features. Following previous work, we define crossdomain sentiment classification as the problem of learning a binary classifier (i.e. positive or negative sentiment) given a small set of labeled data for the source domain, and unlabeled data for both source and target domains. In particular, no labeled data is provided for the target domain.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 68,
"text": "(Blitzer et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper, we describe a cross-domain sentiment classification method using an automatically created sentiment sensitive thesaurus. We use labeled data from multiple source domains and unlabeled data from source and target domains to represent the distribution of features. We represent a lexical element (i.e. a unigram or a bigram of word lemma) in a review using a feature vector. Next, for each lexical element we measure its relatedness to other lexical elements and group related lexical elements to create a thesaurus. The thesaurus captures the relatedness among lexical elements that appear in source and target domains based on the contexts in which the lexical elements appear (their distributional context). A distinctive aspect of our approach is that, in addition to the usual co-occurrence features typically used in characterizing a word's distributional context, we make use, where possible, of the sentiment label of a document: i.e. sentiment labels form part of our context features. This is what makes the distributional thesaurus sensitive to sentiment. Unlabeled data is cheaper to collect compared to labeled data and is often available in large quantities. The use of unlabeled data enables us to accurately estimate the distribution of words in source and target domains. Our method can learn from a large amount of unlabeled data to leverage a robust cross-domain sentiment classifier.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "We model the cross-domain sentiment classification problem as one of feature expansion, where we append additional related features to feature vectors that represent source and target domain reviews in order to reduce the mismatch of features between the two domains. Methods that use related features have been successfully used in numerous tasks such as query expansion (Fang, 2008) , and document classification (Shen et al., 2009) . However, feature expansion techniques have not previously been applied to the task of cross-domain sentiment classification.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 372,
"end": 384,
"text": "(Fang, 2008)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 415,
"end": 434,
"text": "(Shen et al., 2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF17"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In our method, we use the automatically created thesaurus to expand feature vectors in a binary classifier at train and test times by introducing related lexical elements from the thesaurus. We use L1 regularized logistic regression as the classification algorithm. (However, the method is agnostic to the properties of the classifier and can be used to expand feature vectors for any binary classifier). L1 regularization enables us to select a small subset of features for the classifier. Unlike previous work which attempts to learn a cross-domain classifier using a single source domain, we leverage data from multiple source domains to learn a robust classifier that generalizes across multiple domains. Our contributions can be summarized as follows.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 We describe a fully automatic method to create a thesaurus that is sensitive to the sentiment of words expressed in different domains.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "\u2022 We describe a method to use the created thesaurus to expand feature vectors at train and test times in a binary classifier.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "To explain the problem of cross-domain sentiment classification, consider the reviews shown in Table 1 for the domains books and kitchen appliances. Table 1 shows two positive and one negative review from each domain. We have emphasized in boldface the words that express the sentiment of the authors of the reviews. We see that the words excellent, broad, high quality, interesting, and well researched are used to express positive sentiment in the books domain, whereas the word disappointed indicates negative sentiment. On the other hand, in the kitchen appliances domain the words thrilled, high quality, professional, energy saving, lean, and delicious express positive sentiment, whereas the words rust and disappointed express negative sentiment. Although high quality would express positive sentiment in both domains, and disappointed negative sentiment, it is unlikely that we would encounter well researched in kitchen appliances reviews, or rust or delicious in book reviews. Therefore, a model that is trained only using book reviews might not have any weights learnt for delicious or rust, which would make it difficult for this model to accurately classify reviews of kitchen appliances.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 156,
"text": "Table 1",
"ref_id": "TABREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Motivating Example",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "books kitchen appliances + Excellent and broad survey of the development of civilization with all the punch of high quality fiction.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Motivating Example",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "I was so thrilled when I unpack my processor. It is so high quality and professional in both looks and performance. + This is an interesting and well researched book.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Motivating Example",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "Energy saving grill. My husband loves the burgers that I make from this grill. They are lean and delicious. -Whenever a new book by Philippa Gregory comes out, I buy it hoping to have the same experience, and lately have been sorely disappointed.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Motivating Example",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "These knives are already showing spots of rust despite washing by hand and drying. Very disappointed. ",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A Motivating Example",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "One solution to the feature mismatch problem outlined above is to use a thesaurus that groups different words that express the same sentiment. For example, if we know that both excellent and delicious are positive sentiment words, then we can use this knowledge to expand a feature vector that contains the word delicious using the word excellent, thereby reducing the mismatch between features in a test instance and a trained model. Below we describe a method to construct a sentiment sensitive thesaurus for feature expansion.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Given a labeled or an unlabeled review, we first split the review into individual sentences. We carry out part-of-speech (POS) tagging and lemmatization on each review sentence using the RASP sys-tem (Briscoe et al., 2006) . Lemmatization reduces the data sparseness and has been shown to be effective in text classification tasks (Joachims, 1998) . We then apply a simple word filter based on POS tags to select content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs). In particular, previous work has identified adjectives as good indicators of sentiment (Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown, 1997; Wiebe, 2000) . Following previous work in cross-domain sentiment classification, we model a review as a bag of words. We select unigrams and bigrams from each sentence. For the remainder of this paper, we will refer to unigrams and bigrams collectively as lexical elements. Previous work on sentiment classification has shown that both unigrams and bigrams are useful for training a sentiment classifier (Blitzer et al., 2007) . We note that it is possible to create lexical elements both from source domain labeled reviews as well as from unlabeled reviews in source and target domains.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 200,
"end": 222,
"text": "(Briscoe et al., 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 347,
"text": "(Joachims, 1998)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 591,
"text": "(Hatzivassiloglou and McKeown, 1997;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 604,
"text": "Wiebe, 2000)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF19"
},
{
"start": 996,
"end": 1018,
"text": "(Blitzer et al., 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Next, we represent each lexical element u using a set of features as follows. First, we select other lexical elements that co-occur with u in a review sentence as features. Second, from each source domain labeled review sentence in which u occurs, we create sentiment features by appending the label of the review to each lexical element we generate from that review. For example, consider the sentence selected from a positive review of a book shown in Table 2 . In Table 2 , we use the notation \"*P\" to indicate positive sentiment features and \"*N\" to indicate negative sentiment features. The example sentence shown in Table 2 is selected from a positively labeled review, and generates positive sentiment features as shown in Table 2 . In addition to word-level sentiment features, we replace words with their POS tags to create POS-level sentiment features. POS tags generalize the word-level sentiment features, thereby reducing feature sparseness.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 454,
"end": 461,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 474,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 629,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
},
{
"start": 730,
"end": 737,
"text": "Table 2",
"ref_id": "TABREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Let us denote the value of a feature w in the feature vector u representing a lexical element u by f (u, w). The vector u can be seen as a compact representation of the distribution of a lexical element u over the set of features that co-occur with u in the reviews. From the construction of the feature vector u described in the previous paragraph, it follows that w can be either a sentiment feature or another lexical element that co-occurs with u in some review sentence. The distributional hypothesis (Harris, 1954) states that words that have similar distributions are semantically similar. We compute f (u, w) as the pointwise mutual information between a lexical element u and a feature w as follows:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 506,
"end": 520,
"text": "(Harris, 1954)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "f (u, w) = log c(u,w) N n i=1 c(i,w) N \u00d7 m j=1 c(u,j) N",
"eq_num": "(1)"
}
],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Here, c(u, w) denotes the number of review sentences in which a lexical element u and a feature w co-occur, n and m respectively denote the total number of lexical elements and the total number of features, and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "N = n i=1 m j=1 c(i, j).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Pointwise mutual information is known to be biased towards infrequent elements and features. We follow the discounting approach of Pantel & Ravichandran (2004) to overcome this bias.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 159,
"text": "Pantel & Ravichandran (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF15"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Next, for two lexical elements u and v (represented by feature vectors u and v, respectively), we compute the relatedness \u03c4 (v, u) of the feature v to the feature u as follows,",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "EQUATION",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"text": "EQUATION",
"ref_id": "EQREF",
"raw_str": "\u03c4 (v, u) = w\u2208{x|f (v,x)>0} f (u, w) w\u2208{x|f (u,x)>0} f (u, w) .",
"eq_num": "(2)"
}
],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Here, we use the set notation {x|f (v, x) > 0} to denote the set of features that co-occur with v. Relatedness of a lexical element u to another lexical element v is the fraction of feature weights in the feature vector for the element u that also co-occur with the features in the feature vector for the element v. If there are no features that co-occur with both u and v, then the relatedness reaches its minimum value of 0. On the other hand if all features that co-occur with u also co-occur with v, then the relatedness , \u03c4 (v, u), reaches its maximum value of 1. Note that relatedness is an asymmetric measure by the definition given in Equation 2, and the relatedness \u03c4 (v, u) of an element v to another element u is not necessarily equal to \u03c4 (u, v), the relatedness of u to v. We use the relatedness measure defined in Equation 2 to construct a sentiment sensitive thesaurus in which, for each lexical element u we list lexical elements v that co-occur with u (i.e. f (u, v) > 0) in descending order of relatedness values \u03c4 (v, u). In the remainder of the paper, we use the term base entry to refer to a lexical element u for which its related lexical elements v (referred to as the neighbors of u) are listed in the thesaurus. Note that relatedness values computed according to Equation 2 are sensitive to sentiment labels assigned to reviews in the source domain, because co-occurrences are computed over both lexical and sentiment elements extracted from reviews. In other words, the relatedness of an element u to another element v depends upon the sentiment labels assigned to the reviews that generate u and v. This is an important fact that differentiates our sentiment-sensitive thesaurus from other distributional thesauri which do not consider sentiment information.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Moreover, we only need to retain lexical elements in the sentiment sensitive thesaurus because when predicting the sentiment label for target reviews (at test time) we cannot generate sentiment elements from those (unlabeled) reviews, therefore we are not required to find expansion candidates for sentiment elements. However, we emphasize the fact that the relatedness values between the lexical elements listed in the sentiment-sensitive thesaurus are computed using co-occurrences with both lexical and sentiment features, and therefore the expansion candidates selected for the lexical elements in the target domain reviews are sensitive to sentiment labels assigned to reviews in the source domain. Using a sparse matrix format and approximate similarity matching techniques (Sarawagi and Kirpal, 2004) , we can efficiently create a thesaurus from a large set of reviews. sentiment-sensitive thesaurus created in Section 3 to overcome the feature mismatch problem. First, following the bag-of-words model, we model a review d using the set {w 1 , . . . , w N }, where the elements w i are either unigrams or bigrams that appear in the review d. We then represent a review d by a realvalued term-frequency vector d \u2208 R N , where the value of the j-th element d j is set to the total number of occurrences of the unigram or bigram w j in the review d. To find the suitable candidates to expand a vector d for the review d, we define a ranking score score(u i , d) for each base entry in the thesaurus as follows:",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 780,
"end": 807,
"text": "(Sarawagi and Kirpal, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF16"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "score(u i , d) = N j=1 d j \u03c4 (w j , u i ) N l=1 d l (3)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "According to this definition, given a review d, a base entry u i will have a high ranking score if there are many words w j in the review d that are also listed as neighbors for the base entry u i in the sentimentsensitive thesaurus. Moreover, we weight the relatedness scores for each word w j by its normalized term-frequency to emphasize the salient unigrams and bigrams in a review. Recall that relatedness is defined as an asymmetric measure in Equation 2, and we use \u03c4 (w j , u i ) in the computation of score(u i , d) in Equation 3. This is particularly important because we would like to score base entries u i considering all the unigrams and bigrams that appear in a review d, instead of considering each unigram or bigram individually.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "To expand a vector, d, for a review d, we first rank the base entries, u i using the ranking score in Equation 3 and select the top k ranked base entries. Let us denote the r-th ranked (1 \u2264 r \u2264 k) base entry for a review d by v r d . We then extend the original set of unigrams and bigrams {w 1 , . . . , w N } by the base entries",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "v 1 d , . . . , v k d to create a new vec- tor d \u2208 R (N +k) with dimensions corresponding to w 1 , . . . , w N , v 1 d , . . . , v k d for a review d.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "The values of the extended vector d are set as follows. The values of the first N dimensions that correspond to unigrams and bigrams w i that occur in the review d are set to d i , their frequency in d. The subsequent k dimensions that correspond to the top ranked based entries for the review d are weighted according to their ranking score. Specifically, we set the value of the r-th ranked base entry v r d to 1/r. Alternatively, one could use the ranking score, score(v r d , d), itself as the value of the appended base entries. However, both relatedness scores as well as normalized termfrequencies can be small in practice, which leads to very small absolute ranking scores. By using the inverse rank, we only take into account the relative ranking of base entries and ignore their absolute scores.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Note that the score of a base entry depends on a review d. Therefore, we select different base entries as additional features for expanding different reviews. Furthermore, we do not expand each w i individually when expanding a vector d for a review. Instead, we consider all unigrams and bigrams in d when selecting the base entries for expansion. One can think of the feature expansion process as a lower dimensional latent mapping of features onto the space spanned by the base entries in the sentiment-sensitive thesaurus. The asymmetric property of the relatedness (Equation 2) implicitly prefers common words that co-occur with numerous other words as expansion candidates. Such words act as domain independent pivots and enable us to transfer the information regarding sentiment from one domain to another.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Using the extended vectors d to represent reviews, we train a binary classifier from the source domain labeled reviews to predict positive and negative sentiment in reviews. We differentiate the appended base entries v r d from w i that existed in the original vector d (prior to expansion) by assigning different feature identifiers to the appended base entries. For example, a unigram excellent in a feature vector is differentiated from the base entry excellent by assigning the feature id, \"BASE=excellent\" to the latter. This enables us to learn different weights for base entries depending on whether they are useful for expanding a feature vector. We use L1 regularized logistic regression as the classification algorithm (Ng, 2004) , which produces a sparse model in which most irrelevant features are assigned a zero weight. This enables us to select useful features for classification in a systematic way without having to preselect features using heuristic approaches. The regularization parameter is set to its default value of 1 for all the experiments described in this paper.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 729,
"end": 739,
"text": "(Ng, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF11"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Sentiment Sensitive Thesaurus",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "To evaluate our method we use the cross-domain sentiment classification dataset prepared by Blitzer et al. (2007) . This dataset consists of Amazon product reviews for four different product types: books (B), DVDs (D), electronics (E) and kitchen appliances (K). There are 1000 positive and 1000 negative labeled reviews for each domain. Moreover, the dataset contains some unlabeled reviews (on average 17, 547) for each domain. This benchmark dataset has been used in much previous work on cross-domain sentiment classification and by evaluating on it we can directly compare our method against existing approaches.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 113,
"text": "Blitzer et al. (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "Following previous work, we randomly select 800 positive and 800 negative labeled reviews from each domain as training instances (i.e. 1600 \u00d7 4 = 6400); the remainder is used for testing (i.e. 400 \u00d7 4 = 1600). In our experiments, we select each domain in turn as the target domain, with one or more other domains as sources. Note that when we combine more than one source domain we limit the total number of source domain labeled reviews to 1600, balanced between the domains. For example, if we combine two source domains, then we select 400 positive and 400 negative labeled reviews from each domain giving (400 + 400) \u00d7 2 = 1600. This enables us to perform a fair evaluation when combining multiple source domains. The evaluation metric is classification accuracy on a target domain, computed as the percentage of correctly classified target domain reviews out of the total number of reviews in the target domain.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Dataset",
"sec_num": "5.1"
},
{
"text": "To study the effect of feature expansion at train time compared to test time, we used Amazon reviews for two further domains, music and video, which were also collected by Blitzer et al. (2007) but are not part of the benchmark dataset. Each validation domain has 1000 positive and 1000 negative labeled reviews, and 15000 unlabeled reviews. Using the validation domains as targets, we vary the number of top k ranked base entries (Equation 3) used for feature expansion during training (Train k ) and testing (Test k ), and measure the average classification accuracy. Figure 1 illustrates the results using a heat map, where dark colors indicate low accuracy values and light colors indicate high accuracy values. We see that expanding features only at test time (the left-most column) does not work well because we have not learned proper weights for the additional features. Similarly, expanding features only at train time (the bottom-most row) also does not perform well because the expanded features are not used during testing. The maximum classification accuracy is obtained when Test k = 400 and Train k = 800, and we use these values for the remainder of the experiments described in the paper. Figure 2 shows the effect of combining multiple source domains to build a sentiment classifier for the electronics domain. We see that the kitchen domain is the single best source domain when adapting to the electronics target domain. This behavior is explained by the fact that in general kitchen appliances and electronic items have similar aspects. But a more interesting observation is that the accuracy that we obtain when we use two source domains is always greater than the accuracy if we use those domains individually. The highest accuracy is achieved when we use all three source domains. Although not shown here for space limitations, we observed similar trends with other domains in the benchmark dataset.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 193,
"text": "Blitzer et al. (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 570,
"end": 578,
"text": "Figure 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
},
{
"start": 1206,
"end": 1214,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Effect of Feature Expansion",
"sec_num": "5.2"
},
{
"text": "To investigate the impact of the quantity of source domain labeled data on our method, we vary the amount of data from zero to 800 reviews, with equal amounts of positive and negative labeled data. Figure 3 shows the accuracy with the DVD domain as the target. Note that source domain labeled data is used both to create the sentiment sensitive thesaurus as well as to train the sentiment classifier. When there are multiple source domains we limit and balance the number of labeled instances as outlined in Section 5.1. The amount of unlabeled data is held constant, so that any change in classification accu- racy is directly attributable to the source domain labeled instances. Because this is a binary classification task (i.e. positive vs. negative sentiment), a random classifier that does not utilize any labeled data would report a 50% classification accuracy. From Figure 3 , we see that when we increase the amount of source domain labeled data the accuracy increases quickly. In fact, by selecting only 400 (i.e. 50% of the total 800) labeled instances per class, we achieve the maximum performance in most of the cases.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 198,
"end": 206,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 874,
"end": 882,
"text": "Figure 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Combining Multiple Sources",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "To study the effect of source and target domain unlabeled data on the performance of our method, we create sentiment sensitive thesauri using different proportions of unlabeled data. The amount of labeled data is held constant and is balanced across multiple domains as outlined in Section 5.1, so any changes in classification accuracy can be directly attributed to the contribution of unlabeled data. Figure 4 shows classification accuracy on the DVD target domain when we vary the proportion of source domain unlabeled data (target domain's unlabeled data is fixed).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 403,
"end": 412,
"text": "Figure 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Combining Multiple Sources",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "Likewise, Figure 5 shows the classification accuracy on the DVD target domain when we vary the proportion of the target domain's unlabeled data (source domains' unlabeled data is fixed). From Figures 4 and 5, we see that irrespective of the amount being used, there is a clear performance gain when we use unlabeled data from multiple source domains compared to using a single source domain. However, we could not observe a clear gain in performance when we increase the amount of the unlabeled data used to create the sentiment sensitive thesaurus. 138 Table 3 : Cross-domain sentiment classification accuracy. Table 3 compares our method against a number of baselines and previous cross-domain sentiment classification techniques using the benchmark dataset. For all previous techniques we give the results reported in the original papers. The No Thesaurus baseline simulates the effect of not performing any feature expansion. We simply train a binary classifier using unigrams and bigrams as features from the labeled reviews in the source domains and apply the trained classifier on the target domain. This can be considered to be a lower bound that does not perform domain adaptation. SCL is the structural correspondence learning technique of Blitzer et al. (2006) . In SCL-MI, features are selected using the mutual information between a feature (unigram or bigram) and a domain label. After selecting salient features, the SCL algorithm is used to train a binary classifier. SFA is the spectral feature alignment technique of Pan et al. (2010) . Both the LSA and FALSA techniques are based on latent semantic analysis (Pan et al., 2010) . For the Within-Domain baseline, we train a binary classifier using the labeled data from the target domain. This upper baseline represents the classification accuracy we could hope to obtain if we were to have labeled data for the target domain. Note that this is not a cross-domain classification setting. To evaluate the benefit of using sentiment features on our method, we give a NSS (non-sentiment sensitive) baseline in which we create a thesaurus without using any sentiment features.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 1250,
"end": 1271,
"text": "Blitzer et al. (2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF1"
},
{
"start": 1535,
"end": 1552,
"text": "Pan et al. (2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
},
{
"start": 1627,
"end": 1645,
"text": "(Pan et al., 2010)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF12"
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 18,
"text": "Figure 5",
"ref_id": "FIGREF3"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 201,
"text": "Figures 4",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 561,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 612,
"end": 619,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Combining Multiple Sources",
"sec_num": "5.3"
},
{
"text": "Proposed is our method.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Domain Sentiment Classification",
"sec_num": "5.4"
},
{
"text": "From Table 3 , we see that our proposed method returns the best cross-domain sentiment classifica-tion accuracy (shown in boldface) for the three domains kitchen appliances, DVDs, and electronics. For the books domain, the best results are returned by SFA. The books domain has the lowest number of unlabeled reviews (around 5000) in the dataset. Because our method relies upon the availability of unlabeled data for the construction of a sentiment sensitive thesaurus, we believe that this accounts for our lack of performance on the books domain. However, given that it is much cheaper to obtain unlabeled than labeled data for a target domain, there is strong potential for improving the performance of our method in this domain. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant differences (HSD) tests on the classification accuracies for the four domains show that our method is statistically significantly better than both the No Thesaurus and NSS baselines, at confidence level 0.05. We therefore conclude that using the sentiment sensitive thesaurus for feature expansion is useful for cross-domain sentiment classification. The results returned by our method are comparable to state-ofthe-art techniques such as SCL-MI and SFA. In particular, the differences between those techniques and our method are not statistically significant.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"text": "Table 3",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Cross-Domain Sentiment Classification",
"sec_num": "5.4"
},
{
"text": "Compared to single-domain sentiment classification, which has been studied extensively in previous work (Pang and Lee, 2008; Turney, 2002) , crossdomain sentiment classification has only recently received attention in response to advances in the area of domain adaptation. Aue and Gammon (2005) report a number of empirical tests into domain adaptation of sentiment classifiers using an ensemble of classifiers. However, most of these tests were unable to outperform a simple baseline classifier that is trained using all labeled data for all domains. Blitzer et al. (2007) apply the structural correspondence learning (SCL) algorithm to train a crossdomain sentiment classifier. They first chooses a set of pivot features using pointwise mutual information between a feature and a domain label. Next, linear predictors are learnt to predict the occurrences of those pivots. Finally, they use singular value decomposition (SVD) to construct a lowerdimensional feature space in which a binary classi-fier is trained. The selection of pivots is vital to the performance of SCL and heuristically selected pivot features might not guarantee the best performance on target domains. In contrast, our method uses all features when creating the thesaurus and selects a subset of features during training using L1 regularization. Moreover, we do not require SVD, which has cubic time complexity so can be computationally expensive for large datasets.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 124,
"text": "(Pang and Lee, 2008;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF13"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"text": "Turney, 2002)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF18"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 294,
"text": "Aue and Gammon (2005)",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 573,
"text": "Blitzer et al. (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "Pan et al. (2010) use structural feature alignment (SFA) to find an alignment between domain specific and domain independent features. The mutual information of a feature with domain labels is used to classify domain specific and domain independent features. Next, spectral clustering is performed on a bipartite graph that represents the relationship between the two sets of features. Finally, the top eigenvectors are selected to construct a lower-dimensional projection. However, not all words can be cleanly classified into domain specific or domain independent, and this process is conducted prior to training a classifier. In contrast, our method lets a particular lexical entry to be listed as a neighour for multiple base entries. Moreover, we expand each feature vector individually and do not require any clustering. Furthermore, unlike SCL and SFA, which consider a single source domain, our method can efficiently adapt from multiple source domains.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Related Work",
"sec_num": "6"
},
{
"text": "We have described and evaluated a method to construct a sentiment-sensitive thesaurus to bridge the gap between source and target domains in cross-domain sentiment classification using multiple source domains. Experimental results using a benchmark dataset for cross-domain sentiment classification show that our proposed method can improve classification accuracy in a sentiment classifier. In future, we intend to apply the proposed method to other domain adaptation tasks.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions",
"sec_num": "7"
},
{
"text": "Feature ExpansionOur feature expansion phase augments a feature vector with additional related features selected from the",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [
{
"text": "This research was conducted while the first author was a visiting research fellow at Sussex university under the postdoctoral fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Acknowledgements",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Customizing sentiment classifiers to new domains: a case study",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Anthony",
"middle": [],
"last": "Aue",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Michael",
"middle": [],
"last": "Gamon",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2005,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Anthony Aue and Michael Gamon. 2005. Customiz- ing sentiment classifiers to new domains: a case study. Technical report, Microsoft Research.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Domain adaptation with structural correspondence learning",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blitzer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ryan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mcdonald",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John Blitzer, Ryan McDonald, and Fernando Pereira. 2006. Domain adaptation with structural correspon- dence learning. In EMNLP 2006.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Blitzer",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Mark",
"middle": [],
"last": "Dredze",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Fernando",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pereira",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "ACL 2007",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "440--447",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "John Blitzer, Mark Dredze, and Fernando Pereira. 2007. Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: Domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In ACL 2007, pages 440-447.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "The second release of the rasp system",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Ted",
"middle": [],
"last": "Briscoe",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "John",
"middle": [],
"last": "Carroll",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Rebecca",
"middle": [],
"last": "Watson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "COL-ING/ACL 2006 Interactive Presentation Sessions",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Ted Briscoe, John Carroll, and Rebecca Watson. 2006. The second release of the rasp system. In COL- ING/ACL 2006 Interactive Presentation Sessions.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Sentimentoriented contextual advertising. Knowledge and Information Systems",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Kai",
"middle": [],
"last": "Teng",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chia-Hui",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "",
"volume": "23",
"issue": "",
"pages": "321--344",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Teng-Kai Fan and Chia-Hui Chang. 2010. Sentiment- oriented contextual advertising. Knowledge and Infor- mation Systems, 23(3):321-344.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "A re-examination of query expansion using lexical resources",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Hui",
"middle": [],
"last": "Fang",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "ACL 2008",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "139--147",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hui Fang. 2008. A re-examination of query expansion using lexical resources. In ACL 2008, pages 139-147.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "Distributional structure. Word",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Z",
"middle": [],
"last": "Harris",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1954,
"venue": "",
"volume": "10",
"issue": "",
"pages": "146--162",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Z. Harris. 1954. Distributional structure. Word, 10:146- 162.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Vasileios",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hatzivassiloglou",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Kathleen",
"middle": [
"R"
],
"last": "Mckeown",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1997,
"venue": "ACL 1997",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "174--181",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou and Kathleen R. McKeown. 1997. Predicting the semantic orientation of adjec- tives. In ACL 1997, pages 174-181.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "Mining and summarizing customer reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Minqing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bing",
"middle": [],
"last": "Liu",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "168--177",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summariz- ing customer reviews. In KDD 2004, pages 168-177.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Text categorization with support vector machines: Learning with many relevant features",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Thorsten",
"middle": [],
"last": "Joachims",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1998,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "137--142",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Thorsten Joachims. 1998. Text categorization with sup- port vector machines: Learning with many relevant features. In ECML 1998, pages 137-142.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF10": {
"ref_id": "b10",
"title": "Rated aspect summarization of short comments",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Yue",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Chengxiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Zhai",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Neel",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sundaresan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "WWW 2009",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "131--140",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Yue Lu, ChengXiang Zhai, and Neel Sundaresan. 2009. Rated aspect summarization of short comments. In WWW 2009, pages 131-140.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF11": {
"ref_id": "b11",
"title": "Feature selection, l1 vs. l2 regularization, and rotational invariance",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Andrew",
"middle": [
"Y"
],
"last": "Ng",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Andrew Y. Ng. 2004. Feature selection, l1 vs. l2 regular- ization, and rotational invariance. In ICML 2004.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF12": {
"ref_id": "b12",
"title": "Cross-domain sentiment classification via spectral feature alignment",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Xiaochuan",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sinno Jialin Pan",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jian-Tao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ni",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Qiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2010,
"venue": "WWW",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sinno Jialin Pan, Xiaochuan Ni, Jian-Tao Sun, Qiang Yang, and Zheng Chen. 2010. Cross-domain senti- ment classification via spectral feature alignment. In WWW 2010.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF13": {
"ref_id": "b13",
"title": "Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lillian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2008,
"venue": "",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1--135",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bo Pang and Lillian Lee. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Infor- mation Retrieval, 2(1-2):1-135.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF14": {
"ref_id": "b14",
"title": "Thumbs up? sentiment classification using machine learning techniques",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Bo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Lillian",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lee",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Shivakumar",
"middle": [],
"last": "Vaithyanathan",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "79--86",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bo Pang, Lillian Lee, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2002. Thumbs up? sentiment classification using ma- chine learning techniques. In EMNLP 2002, pages 79- 86.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF15": {
"ref_id": "b15",
"title": "Automatically labeling semantic classes",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Patrick",
"middle": [],
"last": "Pantel",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Deepak",
"middle": [],
"last": "Ravichandran",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "NAACL-HLT'04",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "321--328",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Patrick Pantel and Deepak Ravichandran. 2004. Au- tomatically labeling semantic classes. In NAACL- HLT'04, pages 321 -328.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF16": {
"ref_id": "b16",
"title": "Efficient set joins on similarity predicates",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Sunita",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sarawagi",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Alok",
"middle": [],
"last": "Kirpal",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "SIGMOD '04",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "743--754",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sunita Sarawagi and Alok Kirpal. 2004. Efficient set joins on similarity predicates. In SIGMOD '04, pages 743-754.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF17": {
"ref_id": "b17",
"title": "Exploiting term relationship to boost text classification",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Dou",
"middle": [],
"last": "Shen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jianmin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Wu",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Bin",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cao",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Jian-Tao",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Qiang",
"middle": [],
"last": "Yang",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Zheng",
"middle": [],
"last": "Chen",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "Ying",
"middle": [],
"last": "Li",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "CIKM'09",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "1637--1640",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Dou Shen, Jianmin Wu, Bin Cao, Jian-Tao Sun, Qiang Yang, Zheng Chen, and Ying Li. 2009. Exploit- ing term relationship to boost text classification. In CIKM'09, pages 1637 -1640.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF18": {
"ref_id": "b18",
"title": "Thumbs up or thumbs down? semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Peter",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "",
"middle": [],
"last": "Turney",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2002,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "417--424",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Peter D. Turney. 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down? semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classifi- cation of reviews. In ACL 2002, pages 417-424.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF19": {
"ref_id": "b19",
"title": "Learning subjective adjective from corpora",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Janyce",
"middle": [
"M"
],
"last": "Wiebe",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2000,
"venue": "AAAI 2000",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "735--740",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Janyce M. Wiebe. 2000. Learning subjective adjective from corpora. In AAAI 2000, pages 735-740.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"text": "Feature expansion at train vs. test times.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"text": "Effect of using multiple source domains.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"text": "Effect of source domain unlabeled data.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"FIGREF3": {
"num": null,
"text": "Effect of target domain unlabeled data.",
"type_str": "figure",
"uris": null
},
"TABREF0": {
"text": "",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">: Positive (+) and negative (-) sentiment reviews in two different domains.</td></tr><tr><td>sentence</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Excellent and broad survey of</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">the development of civilization.</td></tr><tr><td>POS tags</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">Excellent/JJ and/CC broad/JJ</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">survey/NN1 of/IO the/AT</td><td/></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"3\">development/NN1 of/IO civi-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">lization/NN1</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">lexical elements</td><td colspan=\"3\">excellent, broad, survey, devel-</td></tr><tr><td>(unigrams)</td><td/><td colspan=\"2\">opment, civilization</td><td/></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">lexical elements</td><td colspan=\"3\">excellent+broad, broad+survey,</td></tr><tr><td>(bigrams)</td><td/><td colspan=\"3\">survey+development, develop-</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">ment+civilization</td><td/></tr><tr><td>sentiment</td><td>fea-</td><td>excellent*P,</td><td>broad*P,</td><td>sur-</td></tr><tr><td colspan=\"2\">tures (lemma)</td><td>vey*P,</td><td colspan=\"2\">excellent+broad*P,</td></tr><tr><td/><td/><td colspan=\"2\">broad+survey*P</td><td/></tr><tr><td>sentiment</td><td>fea-</td><td colspan=\"2\">JJ*P, NN1*P, JJ+NN1*P</td><td/></tr><tr><td>tures (POS)</td><td/><td/><td/><td/></tr></table>"
},
"TABREF1": {
"text": "Generating lexical elements and sentiment features from a positive review sentence.",
"html": null,
"type_str": "table",
"num": null,
"content": "<table/>"
}
}
}
} |