skip to main content
10.1145/2512938.2512951acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescosnConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 October 2013Publication History

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.

References

  1. List of text emoticons: The ultimate resource. www.cool-smileys.com/text-emoticons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Msn messenger emoticons. http://messenger.msn.com/Resource/Emoticons.aspx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Omg! oxford english dictionary grows a heart: Graphic symbol for love (and that exclamation) are added as words. tinyurl.com/klv36p.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Yahoo messenger emoticons. http://messenger.yahoo.com/features/emoticons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Amazon. Amazon mechanical turk. https://www.mturk.com/. Accessed June 17, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Bermingham and A. F. Smeaton. Classifying sentiment in microblogs: is brevity an advantage? In ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management (CIKM), pages 1833--1836, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. J. Bollen, H. Mao, and X.-J. Zeng. Twitter mood predicts the stock market. CoRR, abs/1010.3003, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. Bollen, A. Pepe, and H. Mao. Modeling public mood and emotion: Twitter sentiment and socio-economic phenomena. CoRR, abs/0911.1583, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. M. Bradley and P. J. Lang. Affective norms for english words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual, and affective ratings. Technical report, Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. E. Cambria, A. Hussain, C. Havasi, C. Eckl, and J. Munro. Towards crowd validation of the uk national health service. In ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. E. Cambria, R. Speer, C. Havasi, and A. Hussain. Senticnet: A publicly available semantic resource for opinion mining. In AAAI Fall Symposium Series, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M. Cha, H. Haddadi, F. Benevenuto, and K. P. Gummadi. Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy. In Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. S. Dodds and C. M. Danforth. Measuring the happiness of large-scale written expression: songs, blogs, and presidents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4):441--456, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Esuli and Sebastiani. Sentwordnet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 417--422, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Gomide, A. Veloso, W. M. Jr., V. Almeida, F. Benevenuto, F. Ferraz, and M. Teixeira. Dengue surveillance based on a computational model of spatio-temporal locality of twitter. In ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. P. Gonçalves, F. Benevenuto, and M. Cha. Panas-t: A pychometric scale for measuring sentiments on twitter. abs/1308.1857v1, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. Hannak, E. Anderson, L. F. Barrett, S. Lehmann, A. Mislove, and M. Riedewald. Tweetin' in the rain: Exploring societal-scale effects of weather on mood. In Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. X. Hu, J. Tang, H. Gao, and H. Liu. Unsupervised sentiment analysis with emotional signals. In Int'l Conference on World Wide Web, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Lamb, M. J. Paul, and M. Dredze. Separating fact from fear: Tracking flu infections on twitter. In Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 789--795, June 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. G. A. Miller. Wordnet: a lexical database for english. Communications of the ACM, 38(11):39--41, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. G. Paltoglou and M. Thelwall. Twitter, myspace, digg: Unsupervised sentiment analysis in social media. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol., 3(4):66:1--66:19, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. Pang, L. Lee, and S. Vaithyanathan. Thumbs up : sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In ACL Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 79--86, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J. Park, V. Barash, C. Fink, and M. Cha. Emoticon style: Interpreting differences in emoticons across cultures. In Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Read. Using emoticons to reduce dependency in machine learning techniques for sentiment classification. In ACL Student Research Workshop, pages 43--48, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. T. Sakaki, M. Okazaki, and Y. Matsuo. Earthquake shakes twitter users: real-time event detection by social sensors. In Int'l Conference on World wide web (WWW), pages 851--860, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. S. Somasundaran, J. Wiebe, and J. Ruppenhofer. Discourse level opinion interpretation. In Int'l Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 801--808, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Y. R. Tausczik and J. W. Pennebaker. The psychological meaning of words: Liwc and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1):24--54, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. M. Thelwall. Heart and soul: Sentiment strength detection in the social web with sentistrength. http://sentistrength.wlv.ac.uk/documentation/SentiStrengthChapter.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. A. Tumasjan, T. O. Sprenger, P. G. Sandner, and I. M. Welpe. Predicting elections with twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In Int'l AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. Wang, D. Can, A. Kazemzadeh, F. Bar, and S. Narayanan. A system for real-time twitter sentiment analysis of 2012 u.s. presidential election cycle. In ACL System Demonstrations, pages 115--120, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. D. Watson and L. Clark. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1):1063--1070, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. K. Wickre. Celebrating twitter7. http://blog.twitter.com/2013/03/celebrating-twitter7.html. Accessed March 25, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. T. Wilson, P. Hoffmann, S. Somasundaran, J. Kessler, J. Wiebe, Y. Choi, C. Cardie, E. Riloff, and S. Patwardhan. Opinionfinder: a system for subjectivity analysis. In HLT/EMNLP on Interactive Demonstrations, pages 34--35, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Comparing and combining sentiment analysis methods

    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 Conferences
      COSN '13: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Online social networks
      October 2013
      254 pages
      ISBN:9781450320849
      DOI:10.1145/2512938

      Copyright © 2013 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 the author(s) 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: 7 October 2013

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      COSN '13 Paper Acceptance Rate22of138submissions,16%Overall Acceptance Rate69of307submissions,22%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader