Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

From Conditional Random Field (CRF) to Rhetorical Structure Theory(RST): Incorporating Context Information in Sentiment Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Semantic Web: ESWC 2017 Satellite Events (ESWC 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 10577))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1222 Accesses

Abstract

This paper investigates a method based on Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) to incorporate sentence structure (syntax and semantics) and context information to identify sentiments of sentences. It also demonstrates the usefulness of the Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) taking into consideration the discourse role of text segments. Thus, this paper’s aim is to reconsider the effectiveness of CRF and RST methods in incorporating the contextual information into Sentiment Analysis systems. Both methods are evaluated on two, different in size and genre of information sources, the Movie Review Dataset and the Finegrained Sentiment Dataset (FSD). Finally, we discuss the lessons learned from these experimental settings w.r.t. addressing the following key research questions such as whether there is an appropriate type of social media repository to incorporate contextual information, whether extending the pool of the selected features could improve context incorporation into SA systems and which is the best performing feature combination to achieve such improved performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For our experimental setting, we randomly split each collection into a training and a test set of 75% and 25% respectively.

  2. 2.

    http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/pabo/movie-review-data.

  3. 3.

    https://taku910.github.io/crfpp/.

  4. 4.

    This could be explained by the fact that we tend to use subjective sentences in specific parts of the document e.g. in the beginning or at the end of the document.

References

  1. Appel, O., Chiclana, F., Carter, J.: Main concepts, state of the art and future research questions in sentiment analysis. Acta Polytech. Hung. 12(3), 87–108 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Palmero Aprosio, A., Corcoglioniti, F., Dragoni, M., Rospocher, M.: Supervised opinion frames detection with RAID. In: Gandon, F., Cabrio, E., Stankovic, M., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) SemWebEval 2015. CCIS, vol. 548, pp. 251–263. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25518-7_22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Bal, D., Bal, M., Bunningen, A., Hogenboom, A., Hogenboom, F., Frasincar, F.: Sentiment analysis with a multilingual pipeline. In: Bouguettaya, A., Hauswirth, M., Liu, L. (eds.) WISE 2011. LNCS, vol. 6997, pp. 129–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24434-6_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Beineke, P., Hastie, T., Manning, C., Vaithyanathan, S.: Exploring sentiment summarization. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text: Theories and Applications, vol. 39 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Choi, Y., Cardie, C., Riloff, E., Patwardhan, S.: Identifying sources of opinions with conditional random fields and extraction patterns. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 355–362. Association for Computational Linguistics (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Deerwester, S., Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Harshman, R.: Indexing by latent semantic analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 41(6), 391 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dragoni, M., Tettamanzi, A.G., Pereira, C.D.C.: Dranziera: an evaluation protocol for multi-domain opinion mining. In: 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), pp. 267–272. European Language Resources Association (ELRA) (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Federici, M., Dragoni, M.: Towards unsupervised approaches for aspects extraction

    Google Scholar 

  9. Federici, M., Dragoni, M.: A knowledge-based approach for aspect-based opinion mining. In: Sack, H., Dietze, S., Tordai, A., Lange, C. (eds.) SemWebEval 2016. CCIS, vol. 641, pp. 141–152. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46565-4_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Feldman, R.: Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis. Commun. ACM 56(4), 82–89 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gangemi, A., Presutti, V., Recupero, D.R.: Frame-based detection of opinion holders and topics: a model and a tool. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 9(1), 20–30 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hatzivassiloglou, V., McKeown, K.R.: Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In: 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 8th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 174–181. ACL (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Heerschop, B., Goossen, F., Hogenboom, A., Frasincar, F., Kaymak, U., de Jong, F.: Polarity analysis of texts using discourse structure. In: 20th International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 1061–1070. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hogenboom, A., Hogenboom, F., Frasincar, F., Schouten, K., van der Meer, O.: Semantics-based information extraction for detecting economic events. Multimedia Tools Appl. 64(1), 27–52 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jakob, N., Gurevych, I.: Extracting opinion targets in a single-and cross-domain setting with conditional random fields. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1035–1045. Association for Computational Linguistics (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ji, Y., Eisenstein, J.: Representation learning for text-level discourse parsing. In: ACL (1), pp. 13–24 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Katz, G., Ofek, N., Shapira, B.: Consent: context-based sentiment analysis. Knowl. Based Syst. 84, 162–178 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, S.M., Hovy, E.: Automatic identification of pro and con reasons in online reviews. In: Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on Main Conference Poster Sessions, pp. 483–490. Association for Computational Linguistics (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lafferty, J., McCallum, A., Pereira, F.: Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning ICML, vol. 1, pp. 282–289 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisc. J. Study Discourse 8(3), 243–281 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Manning, C.D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J.R., Bethard, S., McClosky, D.: The stanford corenlp natural language processing toolkit. In: ACL (System Demonstrations), pp. 55–60 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. McCallum, A.: Efficiently inducing features of conditional random fields. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 403–410. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pang, B., Lee, L.: A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p. 271. Association for Computational Linguistics (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pang, B., Lee, L.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retrieval 2(1–2), 1–135 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S.: Thumbs up?: sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, vol. 10, pp. 79–86. Association for Computational Linguistics (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Recupero, D.R., Presutti, V., Consoli, S., Gangemi, A., Nuzzolese, A.G.: Sentilo: frame-based sentiment analysis. Cognitive Comput. 7(2), 211–225 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rexha, A., Kröll, M., Dragoni, M., Kern, R.: Exploiting propositions for opinion mining. In: Sack, H., Dietze, S., Tordai, A., Lange, C. (eds.) SemWebEval 2016. CCIS, vol. 641, pp. 121–125. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46565-4_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Rexha, A., Kröll, M., Dragoni, M., Kern, R.: Polarity classification for target phrases in tweets: a word2Vec approach. In: Sack, H., Rizzo, G., Steinmetz, N., Mladenić, D., Auer, S., Lange, C. (eds.) ESWC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9989, pp. 217–223. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47602-5_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Soricut, R., Marcu, D.: Sentence level discourse parsing using syntactic and lexical information. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, vol. 1, pp. 149–156. Association for Computational Linguistics (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stone, P.J., Dunphy, D.C., Smith, M.S.: The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis. MIT Press, Cambridge (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Taboada, M., Voll, K., Brooke, J.: Extracting sentiment as a function of discourse structure and topicality. Simon Fraser Univeristy School of Computing Science Technical Report (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Täckström, O., McDonald, R.: Discovering fine-grained sentiment with latent variable structured prediction models. In: Clough, P., Foley, C., Gurrin, C., Jones, G.J.F., Kraaij, W., Lee, H., Mudoch, V. (eds.) ECIR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6611, pp. 368–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20161-5_37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Turney, P.D.: Thumbs up or thumbs down?: semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 417–424. Association for Computational Linguistics (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wiebe, J., Riloff, E.: Creating subjective and objective sentence classifiers from unannotated texts. In: Gelbukh, A. (ed.) CICLing 2005. LNCS, vol. 3406, pp. 486–497. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30586-6_53

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Wiebe, J., Wilson, T., Cardie, C.: Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Lang. Resour. Eval. 39(2–3), 165–210 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zirn, C., Niepert, M., Stuckenschmidt, H., Strube, M.: Fine-grained sentiment analysis with structural features. In: IJCNLP, pp. 336–344 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Polytexneiou 9, 15780, Zografou, Greece

    Aggeliki Vlachostergiou & George Marandianos

  2. University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, UK

    Stefanos Kollias

Authors
  1. Aggeliki Vlachostergiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Marandianos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefanos Kollias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aggeliki Vlachostergiou .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Eva Blomqvist

  2. Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Katja Hose

  3. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Heiko Paulheim

  4. Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

    Agnieszka Ławrynowicz

  5. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Fabio Ciravegna

  6. Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

    Olaf Hartig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Vlachostergiou, A., Marandianos, G., Kollias, S. (2017). From Conditional Random Field (CRF) to Rhetorical Structure Theory(RST): Incorporating Context Information in Sentiment Analysis. In: Blomqvist, E., Hose, K., Paulheim, H., Ławrynowicz, A., Ciravegna, F., Hartig, O. (eds) The Semantic Web: ESWC 2017 Satellite Events. ESWC 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10577. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70407-4_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70407-4_38

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-70406-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-70407-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics