Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods

Pollyanna Gonçalves, Matheus Araújo, Fabrício Benevenuto, M. Cha
{"title":"Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods","authors":"Pollyanna Gonçalves, Matheus Araújo, Fabrício Benevenuto, M. Cha","doi":"10.1145/2512938.2512951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Several messages express opinions about events, products, and services, political views or even their author's emotional state and mood. Sentiment analysis has been used in several applications including analysis of the repercussions of events in social networks, analysis of opinions about products and services, and simply to better understand aspects of social communication in Online Social Networks (OSNs). There are multiple methods for measuring sentiments, including lexical-based approaches and supervised machine learning methods. Despite the wide use and popularity of some methods, it is unclear which method is better for identifying the polarity (i.e., positive or negative) of a message as the current literature does not provide a method of comparison among existing methods. Such a comparison is crucial for understanding the potential limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of popular methods in analyzing the content of OSNs messages. Our study aims at filling this gap by presenting comparisons of eight popular sentiment analysis methods in terms of coverage (i.e., the fraction of messages whose sentiment is identified) and agreement (i.e., the fraction of identified sentiments that are in tune with ground truth). We develop a new method that combines existing approaches, providing the best coverage results and competitive agreement. We also present a free Web service called iFeel, which provides an open API for accessing and comparing results across different sentiment methods for a given text.","PeriodicalId":304931,"journal":{"name":"Conference on Online Social Networks","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"391","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conference on Online Social Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2512938.2512951","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 391

Abstract

Several messages express opinions about events, products, and services, political views or even their author's emotional state and mood. Sentiment analysis has been used in several applications including analysis of the repercussions of events in social networks, analysis of opinions about products and services, and simply to better understand aspects of social communication in Online Social Networks (OSNs). There are multiple methods for measuring sentiments, including lexical-based approaches and supervised machine learning methods. Despite the wide use and popularity of some methods, it is unclear which method is better for identifying the polarity (i.e., positive or negative) of a message as the current literature does not provide a method of comparison among existing methods. Such a comparison is crucial for understanding the potential limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of popular methods in analyzing the content of OSNs messages. Our study aims at filling this gap by presenting comparisons of eight popular sentiment analysis methods in terms of coverage (i.e., the fraction of messages whose sentiment is identified) and agreement (i.e., the fraction of identified sentiments that are in tune with ground truth). We develop a new method that combines existing approaches, providing the best coverage results and competitive agreement. We also present a free Web service called iFeel, which provides an open API for accessing and comparing results across different sentiment methods for a given text.
情感分析方法的比较与结合
一些信息表达了对事件、产品和服务、政治观点甚至是作者的情绪状态和心情的看法。情感分析已被用于多种应用,包括分析社交网络中事件的影响,分析关于产品和服务的意见,以及更好地理解在线社交网络(OSNs)中的社交交流方面。有多种测量情绪的方法,包括基于词汇的方法和监督机器学习方法。尽管一些方法被广泛使用和流行,但目前尚不清楚哪种方法更适合识别信息的极性(即积极或消极),因为目前的文献没有提供现有方法之间的比较方法。这种比较对于理解分析osn消息内容的常用方法的潜在局限性和优缺点至关重要。我们的研究旨在通过比较八种流行的情绪分析方法来填补这一空白,方法包括覆盖范围(即,识别出情绪的消息的比例)和一致性(即,识别出的情绪与基本事实一致的比例)。我们开发了一种结合现有方法的新方法,提供了最佳的覆盖结果和有竞争力的协议。我们还提供了一个名为iFeel的免费Web服务,它提供了一个开放的API,用于访问和比较给定文本的不同情感方法的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信