skip to main content
10.1145/2912845.2912863acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswimsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sentiment Analysis using Word-Graphs

Published:13 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Word-Graph Sentiment Analysis Method is proposed to identify the sentiment that expressed in a microblog document using the sequence of the words that contains. The sequence of the words can be represented using graphs in which graph similarity metrics and classification algorithms can be applied to produce sentiment predictions. Experiments that were carried out with this method in a Twitter dataset validate the proposed model and allow us to further understand the metrics and the criteria that can be applied in words-graphs to predict the sentiment disposition of short, microblog documents.

References

  1. Agarwal, B. et al. 2015. Sentiment analysis using commonsense and context information. Computational intelligence and neuroscience. 2015, (2015), 30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Aisopos, F. et al. 2012. Content vs. Context for Sentiment Analysis: A Comparative Analysis over Microblogs. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 187--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Aisopos, F. et al. 2011. Sentiment analysis of social media content using N-Gram graphs. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGMM international workshop on Social media (2011), 9--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Aisopos, F. et al. 2012. Textual and contextual patterns for sentiment analysis over microblogs. Proceedings of the 21st international conference companion on World Wide Web (2012), 453--454. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Baccianella, S. et al. 2010. SentiWordNet 3.0: An Enhanced Lexical Resource for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. (May 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chagheri, S. et al. 2012. Feature vector construction combining structure and content for document classification. 2012 6th International Conference on Sciences of Electronics, Technologies of Information and Telecommunications (SETIT) (Mar. 2012), 946--950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Chen, Y. et al. 2009. Similarity-based Classification: Concepts and Algorithms. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 10, (Jun. 2009), 747--776. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Conte, D. et al. Challenging Complexity of Maximum Common Subgraph Detection Algorithms: A Performance Analysis of Three Algorithms on a Wide Database of Graphs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Giannakopoulos, G. et al. 2008. Summarization System Evaluation Revisited: N-gram Graphs. ACM Trans. Speech Lang. Process. 5, 3 (Oct. 2008), 5:1--5:39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gunn, S.R. 1998. Support Vector Machines for Classification and Regression.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang, S. et al. 2013. Sentiment and Topic Analysis on Social Media: A Multi-task Multi-label Classification Approach. Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 172--181. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. IEEE Xplore Abstract - An ontology based sentiment analysis for mobile products using tweets: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6921974&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6921974. Accessed: 2016-04-13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. John, G. and Langley, P. 1995. Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (1995), 338--345. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Khan, A.Z. et al. 2015. Combining lexicon-based and learning-based methods for Twitter sentiment analysis. International Journal of Electronics, Communication and Soft Computing Science & Engineering (IJECSCSE). (2015), 89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kohavi, R. 1995. A Study of Cross-validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2 (San Francisco, CA, USA, 1995), 1137--1143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kontopoulos, E. et al. 2013. Ontology-based sentiment analysis of twitter posts. Expert Systems with Applications. 40, 10 (Aug. 2013), 4065--4074. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Liu, S.M. and Chen, J.-H. 2015. A Multi-label Classification Based Approach for Sentiment Classification. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 3 (Feb. 2015), 1083--1093. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Maas, A.L. et al. 2011. Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies - Volume 1 (Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2011), 142--150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Maas, A.L. et al. Multi-Dimensional Sentiment Analysis with Learned Representations.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Maglogiannis, I.G. 2007. Emerging Artificial Intelligence Applications in Computer Engineering: Real Word AI Systems with Applications in EHealth, HCI, Information Retrieval and Pervasive Technologies. IOS Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mikolov, T. et al. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems (2013), 3111--3119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Narr, S. et al. 2012. Language-independent twitter sentiment analysis. Knowledge Discovery and Machine Learning (KDML), LWA. (2012), 12--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Neviarouskaya, A. et al. 2010. Recognition of Affect, Judgment, and Appreciation in Text. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2010), 806--814. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Nikolić, M. 2012. Measuring similarity of graph nodes by neighbor matching. Intelligent Data Analysis. 16, 6 (Jan. 2012), 865--878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Pak, A. and Paroubek, P. 2010. Twitter as a Corpus for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. Proceedings of the International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2010, 17-23 May 2010, Valletta, Malta (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Pal, M. 2008. Multiclass Approaches for Support Vector Machine Based Land Cover Classification. arXiv:0802.2411 {cs}. (Feb. 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Polymerou, E. et al. 2014. EmoTube: A Sentiment Analysis Integrated Environment for Social Web Content. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics (WIMS14) (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 20:1--20:6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Psomakelis, E. et al. 2014. Comparing methods for Twitter Sentiment Analysis. arXiv:1505.02973 {cs} (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Raymond, J.W. and Willett, P. 2002. Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 16, 7 (Jul. 2002), 521--533.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sam, K. M and Chatwin, C. R. Ontology-Based Sentiment Analysis Model of Customer Reviews for Electronic Products. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Taboada, M. et al. 2011. Lexicon-Based Methods for Sentiment Analysis. Computational Linguistics. 37, 2 (Apr. 2011), 267--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Vakali, A. and Kafetsios, K. Emotion aware clustering analysis as a tool for Web 2.0 communities detection: Implications for curriculum development.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Violos, J. et al. 2014. Clustering Documents Using the 3-Gram Graph Representation Model. Proceedings of the 18th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 29:1--29:5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Wang, X. et al. 2007. Topical n-grams: Phrase and topic discovery, with an application to information retrieval. Data Mining, 2007. ICDM 2007. Seventh IEEE International Conference on (2007), 697--702. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Wilson, T. et al. 2005. Recognizing Contextual Polarity in Phrase-level Sentiment Analysis. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2005), 347--354. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Xu, Y. et al. 2007. A study on mutual information-based feature selection for text categorization. Journal of Computational Information Systems. 3, 3 (2007), 1007--1012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WIMS '16: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics
    June 2016
    309 pages

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 13 June 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    WIMS '16 Paper Acceptance Rate36of53submissions,68%Overall Acceptance Rate140of278submissions,50%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader