Recognizing Strong and Weak Opinion Clauses

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Favorites, Groups & Events

    Recognizing Strong and Weak Opinion Clauses - Presentation Transcript

    1. Recognizing Strong and Weak Opinion Clauses Lucas Rizoli 2007-11-22 CPSC 503
    2. Wilson, Wiebe, & Hwa, 2006 Recognizing Strong and Weak Opinion Clauses
    3. Motivation Opinion is more than binary Intensity of expression How negative or positive? “I'm fond of you” vs. “I love you” Many applications Surveillance, marketing, retrieval...
    4. Subjective expressions Surface-level phrases Express an internal state Opinion, emotion, sentiment, belief, etc. Can describe state directly “I love the taste of Zima”
    5. Sometimes indirect “Rahul is so full of crap” Called an expressive subjective element Physical manifestation “Mayukh applauded the stripper” Called a private state action Vary in intensity neutral; low, medium, high, extreme
    6. Annotation 3 annotators; ~10 000 sentences Who said it or expressed it “Sudeep said Sheelagh is a laugh” Objective and subjective “Sudeep said Sheelagh is a laugh”
    7. Direct subjective element Source, span, intensity, expression intensity, implicit Expressive Subjective element Source, span, intensity Objective speech event element Source, span, implicit
    8. Direct subjective element Source, span, intensity, expression intensity, implicit Expressive Subjective element Source, span, intensity Objective speech event element Source, span, implicit
    9. Annotation notes Differing spans “Edwin is a silly canker-sore of a man.” “Edwin is a silly canker-sore of a man.” Considered any overlap as agreement Agreement on sub/objective elements 82%, 72% (Wiebe et al., 2005)
    10. Agreement on intensity Direct & objective frames Intensity 0.79 (75%) Expression intensity 0.75 (62%) Subjective frames Intensity 0.46 (53%) Used Krippendorff's α
    11. Subjective clues Prev lexicon and rules Verb classes, FrameNet, adjective sets, etc. Culled from literature & experience Syntax rules From dependency representation Part-of-speech in/sensitive
    12. Clue groups Type grouping 29 Prev groups, by source 15 Syntax groups, by class and reliability Intensity grouping Grouped by P(intensity) Groups as classifier features
    13. Classification Mean squared error, not accuracy Allows partially correct labeling Many classifiers Boosting, rules, SVM Clause-level intensity labels Highest intensity in a clause
    14. Medium Medium Neutral
    15. Boosting Bag-of-words + Intensity StdError 0.99–1.211 Rules Intensity StdError 0.99–1.21 SVM Bag-of-words + Type or Intensity StdError 0.75–1.07
    16. Easier to classify high-level clauses More information, training examples Boosting & Rules Off by 1 degree of intensity SVM Ordinal classifier Better by StdError, not Accuracy
    17. Results SVM performs best Intensity and Type groups work best Syntax groups detrimental to all classifiers

    + Lucas RizoliLucas Rizoli, 3 years ago

    custom

    1263 views, 0 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    A summary of a paper used as a starting point for c more

    More info about this document

    CC Attribution License

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 1263
      • 1263 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 0
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories