不同偏见下的情绪多元化

Elif Aktolga, James Allan
{"title":"不同偏见下的情绪多元化","authors":"Elif Aktolga, James Allan","doi":"10.1145/2484028.2484060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior search result diversification work focuses on achieving topical variety in a ranked list, typically equally across all aspects. In this paper, we diversify with sentiments according to an explicit bias. We want to allow users to switch the result perspective to better grasp the polarity of opinionated content, such as during a literature review. For this, we first infer the prior sentiment bias inherent in a controversial topic -- the 'Topic Sentiment'. Then, we utilize this information in 3 different ways to diversify results according to various sentiment biases: (1) Equal diversification to achieve a balanced and unbiased representation of all sentiments on the topic; (2) Diversification towards the Topic Sentiment, in which the actual sentiment bias in the topic is mirrored to emphasize the general perception of the topic; (3) Diversification against the Topic Sentiment, in which documents about the 'minority' or outlying sentiment(s) are boosted and those with the popular sentiment are demoted. Since sentiment classification is an essential tool for this task, we experiment by gradually degrading the accuracy of a perfect classifier down to 40%, and show which diversification approaches prove most stable in this setting. The results reveal that the proportionality-based methods and our SCSF model, considering sentiment strength and frequency in the diversified list, yield the highest gains. Further, in case the Topic Sentiment cannot be reliably estimated, we show how performance is affected by equal diversification when actually an emphasis either towards or against the Topic Sentiment is desired: in the former case, an average of 6.48% is lost across all evaluation measures, whereas in the latter case this is 16.23%, confirming that bias-specific sentiment diversification is crucial.","PeriodicalId":178818,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sentiment diversification with different biases\",\"authors\":\"Elif Aktolga, James Allan\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2484028.2484060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior search result diversification work focuses on achieving topical variety in a ranked list, typically equally across all aspects. In this paper, we diversify with sentiments according to an explicit bias. We want to allow users to switch the result perspective to better grasp the polarity of opinionated content, such as during a literature review. For this, we first infer the prior sentiment bias inherent in a controversial topic -- the 'Topic Sentiment'. Then, we utilize this information in 3 different ways to diversify results according to various sentiment biases: (1) Equal diversification to achieve a balanced and unbiased representation of all sentiments on the topic; (2) Diversification towards the Topic Sentiment, in which the actual sentiment bias in the topic is mirrored to emphasize the general perception of the topic; (3) Diversification against the Topic Sentiment, in which documents about the 'minority' or outlying sentiment(s) are boosted and those with the popular sentiment are demoted. Since sentiment classification is an essential tool for this task, we experiment by gradually degrading the accuracy of a perfect classifier down to 40%, and show which diversification approaches prove most stable in this setting. The results reveal that the proportionality-based methods and our SCSF model, considering sentiment strength and frequency in the diversified list, yield the highest gains. Further, in case the Topic Sentiment cannot be reliably estimated, we show how performance is affected by equal diversification when actually an emphasis either towards or against the Topic Sentiment is desired: in the former case, an average of 6.48% is lost across all evaluation measures, whereas in the latter case this is 16.23%, confirming that bias-specific sentiment diversification is crucial.\",\"PeriodicalId\":178818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval\",\"volume\":\"106 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

先前的搜索结果多样化工作侧重于在排名列表中实现主题多样性,通常在所有方面都是平等的。在本文中,我们根据显式偏见进行情绪多元化。我们希望允许用户切换结果视角,以便更好地掌握固执己见的内容的极性,比如在文献综述中。为此,我们首先推断出在一个有争议的话题中固有的先验情绪偏见——“话题情绪”。然后,我们以3种不同的方式利用这些信息根据不同的情绪偏差来多样化结果:(1)平等多样化,以实现对主题上所有情绪的平衡和公正的表示;(2)话题情绪多元化,即反映话题的实际情绪偏向,强调对话题的总体感知;(3)针对话题情绪的多元化,即关于“少数”或“离群之马”的文件被提升,而那些具有大众情绪的文件被贬低。由于情绪分类是该任务的重要工具,我们通过逐渐将完美分类器的准确率降低到40%来进行实验,并展示哪些多样化方法在此设置下证明最稳定。结果表明,基于比例的方法和我们的SCSF模型,考虑了多元化列表中的情绪强度和频率,产生了最高的收益。此外,在无法可靠地估计主题情绪的情况下,我们展示了在实际强调或反对主题情绪时,相等的多样化是如何影响绩效的:在前一种情况下,所有评估措施平均损失6.48%,而在后一种情况下,这是16.23%,证实了偏见特定的情绪多样化是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sentiment diversification with different biases
Prior search result diversification work focuses on achieving topical variety in a ranked list, typically equally across all aspects. In this paper, we diversify with sentiments according to an explicit bias. We want to allow users to switch the result perspective to better grasp the polarity of opinionated content, such as during a literature review. For this, we first infer the prior sentiment bias inherent in a controversial topic -- the 'Topic Sentiment'. Then, we utilize this information in 3 different ways to diversify results according to various sentiment biases: (1) Equal diversification to achieve a balanced and unbiased representation of all sentiments on the topic; (2) Diversification towards the Topic Sentiment, in which the actual sentiment bias in the topic is mirrored to emphasize the general perception of the topic; (3) Diversification against the Topic Sentiment, in which documents about the 'minority' or outlying sentiment(s) are boosted and those with the popular sentiment are demoted. Since sentiment classification is an essential tool for this task, we experiment by gradually degrading the accuracy of a perfect classifier down to 40%, and show which diversification approaches prove most stable in this setting. The results reveal that the proportionality-based methods and our SCSF model, considering sentiment strength and frequency in the diversified list, yield the highest gains. Further, in case the Topic Sentiment cannot be reliably estimated, we show how performance is affected by equal diversification when actually an emphasis either towards or against the Topic Sentiment is desired: in the former case, an average of 6.48% is lost across all evaluation measures, whereas in the latter case this is 16.23%, confirming that bias-specific sentiment diversification is crucial.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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