Nagamani Yeruva
ABSTRACT
Posts on Twitter allow users to express ideas and opinions very dynamically. This high volume of data provides relevant clues about the public judgment on a specific product, event, service, etc. While traditional sentiment analysis primarily focuses on classifying the sentiment in general (positive or negative) or at an aspect level (very positive, low negative, and so on) and cannot exploit the intensity information. Recently, the problem of irony detection in social media has been proven to be pervasive among research enthusiasts, posing a challenge to sentiment analysis systems. Moreover, the figurative use of language has received scarce attention from the computational linguistic research point of view. This paper proposes an architecture, the Experts Model, inspired by the standard Mixture of Experts (MoE) model. The key idea here is that each expert learns different sets of features from the feature vector, which helps in better irony detection (Ironic vs. Non-ironic - SemEval-2018 subtask A) and ironic type detection (Verbal irony with vs. without polarity contrast vs. Situational irony vs. Non-irony - SemEval-2018 subtask B) from the tweet. We compared our Experts Model’s results with baseline results along with the top five performers of SemEval-2018 Task-3, Ironic detection. The experimental results show that our proposed approach deals with the ironic detection problem and stands at the top-3 results. We opted for a transfer learning approach by applying our proposed model on three different datasets #ironic, #sarcasm, and #humor, and we achieved a better F1-score.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- Rafael T Anchiêta, Francisco Assis Ricarte Neto, Rogério Figueiredo de Sousa, and Raimundo Santos Moura. 2015. Using stylometric features for sentiment classification. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics. Springer, 189–200.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Stefano Baccianella, Andrea Esuli, and Fabrizio Sebastiani. 2010. Sentiwordnet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’10).Google Scholar
- Francesco Barbieri, Horacio Saggion, and Francesco Ronzano. 2014. Modelling sarcasm in twitter, a novel approach. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis. 50–58.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Konstantin Bauman, Bing Liu, and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2017. Aspect based recommendations: Recommending items with the most valuable aspects based on user reviews. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 717–725.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christos Baziotis, Nikos Athanasiou, Pinelopi Papalampidi, Athanasia Kolovou, Georgios Paraskevopoulos, Nikolaos Ellinas, and Alexandros Potamianos. 2018. NTUA-SLP at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Tracking Ironic Tweets using Ensembles of Word and Character Level Attentive RNNs. CoRR abs/1804.06659(2018). arxiv:1804.06659Google Scholar
- Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 5 (2017), 135–146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mondher Bouazizi and Tomoaki Otsuki Ohtsuki. 2016. A pattern based approach for sarcasm detection on Twitter. IEEE Access 4, 5477–5488.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paula Carvalho, Luís Sarmento, Mário J Silva, and Eugénio De Oliveira. 2009. Clues for detecting irony in user-generated contents: oh...!! it’s so easy;-. In Proceedings of the 1st international CIKM workshop on Topic-sentiment analysis for mass opinion. ACM, 53–56.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dmitry Davidov, Oren Tsur, and Ari Rappoport. 2010. Semi-supervised recognition of sarcastic sentences in twitter and amazon. In Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, 107–116.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nikita Desai and Anandkumar D Dave. 2016. Sarcasm detection in hindi sentences using support vector machine. International Journal 4, 7 (2016), 8–15.Google Scholar
- Bjarke Felbo, Alan Mislove, Anders Søgaard, Iyad Rahwan, and Sune Lehmann. 2017. Using millions of emoji occurrences to learn any-domain representations for detecting sentiment, emotion and sarcasm. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Aniruddha Ghosh and Tony Veale. 2016. Fracking sarcasm using neural network. In Proceedings of the 7th workshop on computational approaches to subjectivity, sentiment and social media analysis. 161–169.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roberto González-Ibánez, Smaranda Muresan, and Nina Wacholder. 2011. Identifying sarcasm in Twitter: a closer look. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Short Papers-Volume 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, 581–586.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation 3, 1 (1991), 79–87.Google Scholar
- Michael I Jordan and Robert A Jacobs. 1994. Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm. Neural computation 6, 2 (1994), 181–214.Google Scholar
- Michael I Jordan and Lei Xu. 1995. Convergence results for the EM approach to mixtures of experts architectures. Neural networks 8, 9 (1995), 1409–1431.Google Scholar
- Aditya Joshi, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Mark J Carman. 2017. Automatic sarcasm detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 5 (2017), 73.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anupam Khattri, Aditya Joshi, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Mark Carman. 2015. Your sentiment precedes you: Using an author’s historical tweets to predict sarcasm. In Proceedings of the 6th workshop on computational approaches to subjectivity, sentiment and social media analysis. 25–30.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ryan Kiros, Yukun Zhu, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, Richard Zemel, Raquel Urtasun, Antonio Torralba, and Sanja Fidler. 2015. Skip-thought vectors. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3294–3302.Google Scholar
- Sebastian Kreuz, Daniela Siegmund, Peter Scheurich, and Harald Wajant. 2001. NF-κB inducers upregulate cFLIP, a cycloheximide-sensitive inhibitor of death receptor signaling. Molecular and cellular biology 21, 12 (2001), 3964–3973.Google Scholar
- Bing Liu and Lei Zhang. 2012. A survey of opinion mining and sentiment analysis. In Mining text data. Springer, 415–463.Google Scholar
- DG Maynard and Mark A Greenwood. 2014. Who cares about sarcastic tweets? investigating the impact of sarcasm on sentiment analysis. In LREC 2014 Proceedings. ELRA.Google Scholar
- Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3111–3119.Google Scholar
- Saif Mohammad and Felipe Bravo-Marquez. 2017. Emotion Intensities in Tweets. In Proceedings of the 6th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (* SEM 2017). 65–77.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Finn Årup Nielsen. 2011. A new ANEW: Evaluation of a word list for sentiment analysis in microblogs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1103.2903(2011).Google Scholar
- Steven J Nowlan and Geoffrey E Hinton. 1991. Evaluation of adaptive mixtures of competing experts. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 774–780.Google Scholar
- Georgios Paltoglou, Mike Thelwall, and Kevan Buckley. 2010. Online textual communications annotated with grades of emotion strength. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop of Emotion: Corpora for research on Emotion and Affect. 25–31.Google Scholar
- Bo Pang, Lillian Lee, 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 2, 1–2(2008), 1–135.Google Scholar
- Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 1532–1543. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162Google Scholar
- Saša Petrović, Miles Osborne, and Victor Lavrenko. 2010. The edinburgh twitter corpus. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Linguistics in a World of Social Media. 25–26.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Soujanya Poria, Erik Cambria, Devamanyu Hazarika, and Prateek Vij. 2016. A deeper look into sarcastic tweets using deep convolutional neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.08815(2016).Google Scholar
- Antonio Reyes and Paolo Rosso. 2014. On the difficulty of automatically detecting irony: beyond a simple case of negation. Knowledge and Information Systems 40, 3 (2014), 595–614.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Antonio Reyes, Paolo Rosso, and Davide Buscaldi. 2009. Humor in the blogosphere: First clues for a verbal humor taxonomy. Journal of Intelligent Systems 18, 4 (2009), 311–332.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antonio Reyes, Paolo Rosso, and Tony Veale. 2013. A multidimensional approach for detecting irony in twitter. Language resources and evaluation 47, 1 (2013), 239–268.Google Scholar
- Omid Rohanian, Shiva Taslimipoor, Richard Evans, and Ruslan Mitkov. 2018. WLV at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Dissecting Tweets in Search of Irony. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. 553–559.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacopo Staiano and Marco Guerini. 2014. Depeche Mood: a Lexicon for Emotion Analysis from Crowd Annotated News. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), Vol. 2. 427–433.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, and Véronique Hoste. 2016. Exploring the Realization of Irony in Twitter Data.. In LREC.Google Scholar
- Cynthia Van Hee, Els Lefever, and Véronique Hoste. 2018. Semeval-2018 task 3: Irony detection in english tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. 39–50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tony Veale and Yanfen Hao. 2010. Detecting ironic intent in creative comparisons. In ECAI 2010. IOS Press, 765–770.Google Scholar
- Byron C Wallace. 2015. Computational irony: A survey and new perspectives. Artificial Intelligence Review 43, 4 (2015), 467–483.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 347–354.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, and Rebecca Hwa. 2004. Just how mad are you? Finding strong and weak opinion clauses. In aaai, Vol. 4. 761–769.Google Scholar
- Seniha Esen Yuksel, Joseph N Wilson, and Paul D Gader. 2012. Twenty years of mixture of experts. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 23, 8(2012), 1177–1193.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Extracting Ironic Tweets using Experts Model
Recommendations
Sentence-Level Sarcasm Detection in English and Filipino Tweets
ICIBE '18: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Industrial and Business EngineeringSarcasm is a special form of sentiment which defines as "a nuanced form of language in which individuals say the opposite of what is implied". In this study, the researchers collected 6,000 Tagalog tweets and 6,000 English tweets from the microblogging ...
Signaling sarcasm
The use of hashtags such as #sarcasm reduces the further use of linguistic markers of sarcasm in tweets.Hashtags such as #sarcasm appear to be the extralinguistic equivalent of non-verbal expressions in live interaction.Sarcastic hashtags are 90% ...
Affect Classification in Tweets using Multitask Deep Neural Networks
WWW '21: Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021We propose a multitask deep neural network for detecting affect-retweet pairs for Twitter tweets. Each task given to our network jointly learns a given affect, e.g. hate, sarcasm etc., along with learning retweeting behaviour as an auxiliary task, from ...
Comments