skip to main content
10.1145/1871437.1871741acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Classifying sentiment in microblogs: is brevity an advantage?

Published:26 October 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Microblogs as a new textual domain offer a unique proposition for sentiment analysis. Their short document length suggests any sentiment they contain is compact and explicit. However, this short length coupled with their noisy nature can pose difficulties for standard machine learning document representations. In this work we examine the hypothesis that it is easier to classify the sentiment in these short form documents than in longer form documents. Surprisingly, we find classifying sentiment in microblogs easier than in blogs and make a number of observations pertaining to the challenge of supervised learning for sentiment analysis in microblogs.

References

  1. S. Agarwal, S. Godbole, D. Punjani, and S. Roy. How much noise is too much: A study in automatic text classification. In ICDM, pages 3--12, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 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
  3. P. Carvalho, L. Sarmento, M. J. Silva, and E. de Oliveira. Clues for detecting irony in user-generated contents: oh...!! it's "so easy" ;-). In TSA '09: Proceeding of the 1st international CIKM workshop on Topic-sentiment analysis for mass opinion, pages 53--56, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Choudhury, R. Saraf, V. Jain, A. Mukherjee, S. Sarkar, and A. Basu. Investigation and modeling of the structure of texting language. IJDAR, 10(3--4):157--174, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. N. A. Diakopoulos and D. A. Shamma. Characterizing debate performance via aggregated Twitter sentiment. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2010), 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Esuli and F. Sebastiani. Sentiwordnet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-06), pages 417--422, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Gamon. Sentiment classification on customer feedback data: noisy data, large feature vectors, and the role of linguistic analysis. In COLING '04: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics, page 841, Morristown, NJ, USA, 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. C. MacDonald and I. Ounis. The TREC Blogs06 collection: Creating and analysing a blog test collection. Technical report, University of Glasgow, Department of Computing Science, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Matsumoto, H. Takamura, and M. Okumura. Sentiment classification using word sub-sequences and dependency sub-trees. In Proceedings of PAKDD'05, the 9th Pacific-Asia Conference on Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. N. O'Hare, M. Davy, A. Bermingham, P. Ferguson, P. Sheridan, C. Gurrin, and A. F. Smeaton. Topic-dependent sentiment analysis of financial blogs. In In: TSA 2009 - 1st International CIKM Workshop on Topic-Sentiment Analysis for Mass Opinion Measurement, Hong Kong, China, 6 Nov 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. B. Pang and L. Lee. A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In ACL '04: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, page 271, Morristown, NJ, USA, 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. B. Pang and L. Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundation and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1--2):1--135, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. A. Tagliamonte and D. Denis. LINGUISTIC RUIN? LOL! INSTANT MESSAGING AND TEEN LANGUAGE. American Speech, 83(1):3--34, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. T. Wilson, J. Wiebe, and P. Hoffmann. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 347--354, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Classifying sentiment in microblogs: is brevity an advantage?

    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
      CIKM '10: Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
      October 2010
      2036 pages
      ISBN:9781450300995
      DOI:10.1145/1871437

      Copyright © 2010 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: 26 October 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • poster

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader