Sentiment analysis

Sentiment analysis (also known as opinion mining or emotion AI) is the use of natural language
processing, text analysis, computational linguistics, and biometrics to systematically identify, extract,
quantify, and study affective states and subjective information. Sentiment analysis is widely applied to voice
of the customer materials such as reviews and survey responses, online and social media, and healthcare
materials for applications that range from marketing to customer service to clinical medicine. With the rise
of deep language models, such as RoBERTa, also more difficult data domains can be analyzed, e.g., news
texts where authors typically express their opinion/sentiment less explicitly.[1]

Examples
The objective and challenges of sentiment analysis can be shown through some simple examples.

Simple cases
Coronet has the best lines of all day cruisers.
Bertram has a deep V hull and runs easily through seas.
Pastel-colored 1980s day cruisers from Florida are ugly.
I dislike old cabin cruisers.

More challenging examples

I do not dislike cabin cruisers. (Negation handling)
Disliking watercraft is not really my thing. (Negation, inverted word order)
Sometimes I really hate RIBs. (Adverbial modifies the sentiment)
I'd really truly love going out in this weather! (Possibly sarcastic)
Chris Craft is better looking than Limestone. (Two brand names, identifying the target of
attitude is difficult).
Chris Craft is better looking than Limestone, but Limestone projects seaworthiness and
reliability. (Two attitudes, two brand names).
The movie is surprising with plenty of unsettling plot twists. (Negative term used in a positive
sense in certain domains).
You should see their decadent dessert menu. (Attitudinal term has shifted polarity recently in
certain domains)
I love my mobile but would not recommend it to any of my colleagues. (Qualified positive
sentiment, difficult to categorise)
Next week's gig will be right koide9! ("Quoi de neuf?", French for "what's new?". Newly
minted terms can be highly attitudinal but volatile in polarity and often out of known
vocabulary.)

Types
A basic task in sentiment analysis is classifying the polarity of a given text at the document, sentence, or
feature/aspect level—whether the expressed opinion in a document, a sentence or an entity feature/aspect is
positive, negative, or neutral. Advanced, "beyond polarity" sentiment classification looks, for instance, at
emotional states such as enjoyment, anger, disgust, sadness, fear, and surprise.[2]

Precursors to sentimental analysis include the General Inquirer,[3] which provided hints toward quantifying
patterns in text and, separately, psychological research that examined a person's psychological state based
on analysis of their verbal behavior.[4]

Subsequently, the method described in a patent by Volcani and Fogel,[5] looked specifically at sentiment
and identified individual words and phrases in text with respect to different emotional scales. A current
system based on their work, called EffectCheck, presents synonyms that can be used to increase or
decrease the level of evoked emotion in each scale.

Many other subsequent efforts were less sophisticated, using a mere polar view of sentiment, from positive
to negative, such as work by Turney,[6] and Pang[7] who applied different methods for detecting the
polarity of product reviews and movie reviews respectively. This work is at the document level. One can
also classify a document's polarity on a multi-way scale, which was attempted by Pang[8] and Snyder[9]
among others: Pang and Lee[8] expanded the basic task of classifying a movie review as either positive or
negative to predict star ratings on either a 3- or a 4-star scale, while Snyder[9] performed an in-depth
analysis of restaurant reviews, predicting ratings for various aspects of the given restaurant, such as the food
and atmosphere (on a five-star scale).

First steps to bringing together various approaches—learning, lexical, knowledge-based, etc.—were taken
in the 2004 AAAI Spring Symposium where linguists, computer scientists, and other interested researchers
first aligned interests and proposed shared tasks and benchmark data sets for the systematic computational
research on affect, appeal, subjectivity, and sentiment in text.[10]

Even though in most statistical classification methods, the neutral class is ignored under the assumption that
neutral texts lie near the boundary of the binary classifier, several researchers suggest that, as in every
polarity problem, three categories must be identified. Moreover, it can be proven that specific classifiers
such as the Max Entropy[11] and SVMs[12] can benefit from the introduction of a neutral class and improve
the overall accuracy of the classification. There are in principle two ways for operating with a neutral class.
Either, the algorithm proceeds by first identifying the neutral language, filtering it out and then assessing the
rest in terms of positive and negative sentiments, or it builds a three-way classification in one step.[13] This
second approach often involves estimating a probability distribution over all categories (e.g. naive Bayes
classifiers as implemented by the NLTK). Whether and how to use a neutral class depends on the nature of
the data: if the data is clearly clustered into neutral, negative and positive language, it makes sense to filter
the neutral language out and focus on the polarity between positive and negative sentiments. If, in contrast,
the data are mostly neutral with small deviations towards positive and negative affect, this strategy would
make it harder to clearly distinguish between the two poles.

A different method for determining sentiment is the use of a scaling system whereby words commonly
associated with having a negative, neutral, or positive sentiment with them are given an associated number
on a −10 to +10 scale (most negative up to most positive) or simply from 0 to a positive upper limit such as
+4. This makes it possible to adjust the sentiment of a given term relative to its environment (usually on the
level of the sentence). When a piece of unstructured text is analyzed using natural language processing,
each concept in the specified environment is given a score based on the way sentiment words relate to the
concept and its associated score.[14][15][16] This allows movement to a more sophisticated understanding of
sentiment, because it is now possible to adjust the sentiment value of a concept relative to modifications that
may surround it. Words, for example, that intensify, relax or negate the sentiment expressed by the concept
can affect its score. Alternatively, texts can be given a positive and negative sentiment strength score if the
goal is to determine the sentiment in a text rather than the overall polarity and strength of the text.[17]

There are various other types of sentiment analysis like- Aspect Based sentiment analysis, Grading
sentiment analysis (positive, negative, neutral), Multilingual sentiment analysis and detection of emotions.

Subjectivity/objectivity identification

This task is commonly defined as classifying a given text (usually a sentence) into one of two classes:
objective or subjective.[18] This problem can sometimes be more difficult than polarity classification.[19]
The subjectivity of words and phrases may depend on their context and an objective document may contain
subjective sentences (e.g., a news article quoting people's opinions). Moreover, as mentioned by Su,[20]
results are largely dependent on the definition of subjectivity used when annotating texts. However,
Pang[21] showed that removing objective sentences from a document before classifying its polarity helped
improve performance.

Subjective and objective identification, emerging subtasks of sentiment analysis to use syntactic, semantic
features, and machine learning knowledge to identify a sentence or document are facts or opinions.
Awareness of recognizing factual and opinions is not recent, having possibly first presented by Carbonell at
Yale University in 1979.

The term objective refers to the incident carrying factual information.[22]

Example of an objective sentence: 'To be elected president of the United States, a candidate
must be at least thirty-five years of age.'

The term subjective describes the incident contains non-factual information in various forms, such as
personal opinions, judgment, and predictions. Also known as 'private states' mentioned by Quirk et al.[23]
In the example down below, it reflects a private states 'We Americans'.   Moreover, the target entity
commented by the opinions can take several forms from tangible product to intangible topic matters stated
in Liu(2010).[24] Furthermore, three types of attitudes were observed by Liu(2010), 1) positive opinions, 2)
neutral opinions, and 3) negative opinions.[24]

Example of a subjective sentence: 'We Americans need to elect a president who is mature
and who is able to make wise decisions.'

This analysis is a classification problem.[25]

Each class's collections of words or phrase indicators are defined for to locate desirable patterns on
unannotated text. For subjective expression, a different word list has been created. Lists of subjective
indicators in words or phrases have been developed by multiple researchers in the linguist and natural
language processing field states in Riloff et al.(2003).[26] A dictionary of extraction rules has to be created
for measuring given expressions. Over the years, in subjective detection, the features extraction progression
from curating features by hand to automated features learning. At the moment, automated learning methods
can further separate into supervised and unsupervised machine learning. Patterns extraction with machine
learning process annotated and unannotated text have been explored extensively by academic researchers.

However, researchers recognized several challenges in developing fixed sets of rules for expressions
respectably. Much of the challenges in rule development stems from the nature of textual information. Six
challenges have been recognized by several researchers: 1) metaphorical expressions, 2) discrepancies in
writings, 3) context-sensitive, 4) represented words with fewer usages, 5) time-sensitive, and 6) ever-
growing volume.

1. Metaphorical expressions. The text contains metaphoric expression may impact on the
performance on the extraction.[27] Besides, metaphors take in different forms, which may
have been contributed to the increase in detection.
2. Discrepancies in writings. For the text obtained from the Internet, the discrepancies in the
writing style of targeted text data involve distinct writing genres and styles.
3. Context-sensitive. Classification may vary based on the subjectiveness or objectiveness of
previous and following sentences.[25]
4. Time-sensitive attribute. The task is challenged by some textual data's time-sensitive
attribute. If a group of researchers wants to confirm a piece of fact in the news, they need a
longer time for cross-validation, than the news becomes outdated.
5. Cue words with fewer usages.
6. Ever-growing volume. The task is also challenged by the sheer volume of textual data. The
textual data's ever-growing nature makes the task overwhelmingly difficult for the
researchers to complete the task on time.

Previously, the research mainly focused on document level classification. However, classifying a document
level suffers less accuracy, as an article may have diverse types of expressions involved. Researching
evidence suggests a set of news articles that are expected to dominate by the objective expression, whereas
the results show that it consisted of over 40% of subjective expression.[22]

To overcome those challenges, researchers conclude that classifier efficacy depends on the precisions of
patterns learner. And the learner feeds with large volumes of annotated training data outperformed those
trained on less comprehensive subjective features. However, one of the main obstacles to executing this
type of work is to generate a big dataset of annotated sentences manually. The manual annotation method
has been less favored than automatic learning for three reasons:

1. Variations in comprehensions. In the manual annotation task, disagreement of whether one

instance is subjective or objective may occur among annotators because of languages'
ambiguity.
2. Human errors. Manual annotation task is a meticulous assignment, it require intense
concentration to finish.
3. Time-consuming. Manual annotation task is an assiduous work. Riloff (1996) show that a
160 texts cost 8 hours for one annotator to finish.[28]

All these mentioned reasons can impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of subjective and objective
classification. Accordingly, two bootstrapping methods were designed to learning linguistic patterns from
unannotated text data. Both methods are starting with a handful of seed words and unannotated textual
data.

1. Meta-Bootstrapping by Riloff and Jones in 1999.[29] Level One: Generate extraction patterns
based on the pre-defined rules and the extracted patterns by the number of seed words each
pattern holds. Level Two: Top 5 words will be marked and add to the dictionary. Repeat.
2. Basilisk (Bootstrapping Approach to Semantic Lexicon Induction using Semantic
Knowledge) by Thelen and Riloff.[30] Step One: Generate extraction patterns Step Two:
Move best patterns from Pattern Pool to Candidate Word Pool. Step Three: Top 10 words
will be marked and add to the dictionary. Repeat.

Overall, these algorithms highlight the need for automatic pattern recognition and extraction in subjective
and objective task.
Subjective and object classifier can enhance the several applications of natural language processing. One of
the classifier's primary benefits is that it popularized the practice of data-driven decision-making processes
in various industries.  According to Liu, the applications of subjective and objective identification have
been implemented in business, advertising, sports, and social science.[31]

Online review classification: In the business industry, the classifier helps the company better
understand the feedbacks on product and reasonings behind the reviews.
Stock price prediction: In the finance industry, the classifier aids the prediction model by
process auxiliary information from social media and other textual information from the
Internet. Previous studies on Japanese stock price conducted by Dong et al. indicates that
model with subjective and objective module may perform better than those without this
part.[32]
Social media analysis.
Students' feedback classification.[33]
Document summarising: The classifier can extract target-specified comments and gathering
opinions made by one particular entity.
Complex question answering. The classifier can dissect the complex questions by classing
the language subject or objective and focused target. In the research Yu et al.(2003), the
researcher developed a sentence and document level clustered that identity opinion
pieces.[34]
Domain-specific applications.
Email analysis: The subjective and objective classifier detects spam by tracing language
patterns with target words.

Feature/aspect-based

It refers to determining the opinions or sentiments expressed on different features or aspects of entities, e.g.,
of a cell phone, a digital camera, or a bank.[35] A feature or aspect is an attribute or component of an entity,
e.g., the screen of a cell phone, the service for a restaurant, or the picture quality of a camera. The
advantage of feature-based sentiment analysis is the possibility to capture nuances about objects of interest.
Different features can generate different sentiment responses, for example a hotel can have a convenient
location, but mediocre food.[36] This problem involves several sub-problems, e.g., identifying relevant
entities, extracting their features/aspects, and determining whether an opinion expressed on each
feature/aspect is positive, negative or neutral.[37] The automatic identification of features can be performed
with syntactic methods, with topic modeling,[38][39] or with deep learning.[40][41] More detailed
discussions about this level of sentiment analysis can be found in Liu's work.[24]

Intensity Ranking

Emotions and sentiments are subjective in nature. The degree of emotions/sentiments expressed in a given
text at the document, sentence, or feature/aspect level—to what degree of intensity is expressed in the
opinion of a document, a sentence or an entity differs on a case-to-case basis.[42] However, predicting only
the emotion and sentiment does not always convey complete information. The degree or level of emotions
and sentiments often plays a crucial role in understanding the exact feeling within a single class (e.g., 'good'
versus 'awesome'). Some methods leverage a stacked ensemble method[43] for predicting intensity for
emotion and sentiment by combining the outputs obtained and using deep learning models based on
convolutional neural networks,[44] long short-term memory networks and gated recurrent units.[45]

Methods and features

Existing approaches to sentiment analysis can be grouped into three main categories: knowledge-based
techniques, statistical methods, and hybrid approaches.[46] Knowledge-based techniques classify text by
affect categories based on the presence of unambiguous affect words such as happy, sad, afraid, and
bored.[47] Some knowledge bases not only list obvious affect words, but also assign arbitrary words a
probable "affinity" to particular emotions.[48] Statistical methods leverage elements from machine learning
such as latent semantic analysis, support vector machines, "bag of words", "Pointwise Mutual Information"
for Semantic Orientation,[6] semantic space models or word embedding models,[49] and deep learning.
More sophisticated methods try to detect the holder of a sentiment (i.e., the person who maintains that
affective state) and the target (i.e., the entity about which the affect is felt).[50] To mine the opinion in
context and get the feature about which the speaker has opined, the grammatical relationships of words are
used. Grammatical dependency relations are obtained by deep parsing of the text.[51] Hybrid approaches
leverage both machine learning and elements from knowledge representation such as ontologies and
semantic networks in order to detect semantics that are expressed in a subtle manner, e.g., through the
analysis of concepts that do not explicitly convey relevant information, but which are implicitly linked to
other concepts that do so.[52]

Open source software tools as well as range of free and paid sentiment analysis tools deploy machine
learning, statistics, and natural language processing techniques to automate sentiment analysis on large
collections of texts, including web pages, online news, internet discussion groups, online reviews, web
blogs, and social media.[53] Knowledge-based systems, on the other hand, make use of publicly available
resources, to extract the semantic and affective information associated with natural language concepts. The
system can help perform affective commonsense reasoning.[54] Sentiment analysis can also be performed
on visual content, i.e., images and videos (see Multimodal sentiment analysis). One of the first approaches
in this direction is SentiBank[55] utilizing an adjective noun pair representation of visual content. In
addition, the vast majority of sentiment classification approaches rely on the bag-of-words model, which
disregards context, grammar and even word order. Approaches that analyses the sentiment based on how
words compose the meaning of longer phrases have shown better result,[56] but they incur an additional
annotation overhead.

A human analysis component is required in sentiment analysis, as automated systems are not able to
analyze historical tendencies of the individual commenter, or the platform and are often classified
incorrectly in their expressed sentiment. Automation impacts approximately 23% of comments that are
correctly classified by humans.[57] However, humans often disagree, and it is argued that the inter-human
agreement provides an upper bound that automated sentiment classifiers can eventually reach.[58]

Evaluation
The accuracy of a sentiment analysis system is, in principle, how well it agrees with human judgments.
This is usually measured by variant measures based on precision and recall over the two target categories of
negative and positive texts. However, according to research human raters typically only agree about
80%[59] of the time (see Inter-rater reliability). Thus, a program that achieves 70% accuracy in classifying
sentiment is doing nearly as well as humans, even though such accuracy may not sound impressive. If a
program were "right" 100% of the time, humans would still disagree with it about 20% of the time, since
they disagree that much about any answer.[60]
On the other hand, computer systems will make very different errors than human assessors, and thus the
figures are not entirely comparable. For instance, a computer system will have trouble with negations,
exaggerations, jokes, or sarcasm, which typically are easy to handle for a human reader: some errors a
computer system makes will seem overly naive to a human. In general, the utility for practical commercial
tasks of sentiment analysis as it is defined in academic research has been called into question, mostly since
the simple one-dimensional model of sentiment from negative to positive yields rather little actionable
information for a client worrying about the effect of public discourse on e.g. brand or corporate
reputation.[61][62][63]

To better fit market needs, evaluation of sentiment analysis has moved to more task-based measures,
formulated together with representatives from PR agencies and market research professionals. The focus in
e.g. the RepLab evaluation data set is less on the content of the text under consideration and more on the
effect of the text in question on brand reputation.[64][65][66]

Because evaluation of sentiment analysis is becoming more and more task based, each implementation
needs a separate training model to get a more accurate representation of sentiment for a given data set.

Web 2.0
The rise of social media such as blogs and social networks has fueled interest in sentiment analysis. With
the proliferation of reviews, ratings, recommendations and other forms of online expression, online opinion
has turned into a kind of virtual currency for businesses looking to market their products, identify new
opportunities and manage their reputations. As businesses look to automate the process of filtering out the
noise, understanding the conversations, identifying the relevant content and actioning it appropriately, many
are now looking to the field of sentiment analysis.[67] Further complicating the matter, is the rise of
anonymous social media platforms such as 4chan and Reddit.[68] If web 2.0 was all about democratizing
publishing, then the next stage of the web may well be based on democratizing data mining of all the
content that is getting published.[69]

One step towards this aim is accomplished in research. Several research teams in universities around the
world currently focus on understanding the dynamics of sentiment in e-communities through sentiment
analysis.[70] The CyberEmotions project, for instance, recently identified the role of negative emotions in
driving social networks discussions.[71]

The problem is that most sentiment analysis algorithms use simple terms to express sentiment about a
product or service. However, cultural factors, linguistic nuances, and differing contexts make it extremely
difficult to turn a string of written text into a simple pro or con sentiment.[67] The fact that humans often
disagree on the sentiment of text illustrates how big a task it is for computers to get this right. The shorter
the string of text, the harder it becomes.

Even though short text strings might be a problem, sentiment analysis within microblogging has shown that
Twitter can be seen as a valid online indicator of political sentiment. Tweets' political sentiment
demonstrates close correspondence to parties' and politicians' political positions, indicating that the content
of Twitter messages plausibly reflects the offline political landscape.[72] Furthermore, sentiment analysis on
Twitter has also been shown to capture the public mood behind human reproduction cycles globally,[73] as
well as other problems of public-health relevance such as adverse drug reactions.[74]

While sentiment analysis has been popular for domains where authors express their opinion rather explicitly
("the movie is awesome"), such as social media and product reviews, only recently robust methods were
devised for other domains where sentiment is strongly implicit or indirect. For example, in news articles -
mostly due to the expected journalistic objectivity - journalists often describe actions or events rather than
directly stating the polarity of a piece of information. Earlier approaches using dictionaries or shallow
machine learning features were unable to catch the "meaning between the lines", but recently researchers
have proposed a deep learning based approach and dataset that is able to analyze sentiment in news
articles.[1]

Application in recommender systems

For a recommender system, sentiment analysis has been proven to be a valuable technique. A recommender
system aims to predict the preference for an item of a target user. Mainstream recommender systems work
on explicit data set. For example, collaborative filtering works on the rating matrix, and content-based
filtering works on the meta-data of the items.

In many social networking services or e-commerce websites, users can provide text review, comment or
feedback to the items. These user-generated text provide a rich source of user's sentiment opinions about
numerous products and items. Potentially, for an item, such text can reveal both the related feature/aspects
of the item and the users' sentiments on each feature.[75] The item's feature/aspects described in the text
play the same role with the meta-data in content-based filtering, but the former are more valuable for the
recommender system. Since these features are broadly mentioned by users in their reviews, they can be
seen as the most crucial features that can significantly influence the user's experience on the item, while the
meta-data of the item (usually provided by the producers instead of consumers) may ignore features that are
concerned by the users. For different items with common features, a user may give different sentiments.
Also, a feature of the same item may receive different sentiments from different users. Users' sentiments on
the features can be regarded as a multi-dimensional rating score, reflecting their preference on the items.

Based on the feature/aspects and the sentiments extracted from the user-generated text, a hybrid
recommender system can be constructed.[76] There are two types of motivation to recommend a candidate
item to a user. The first motivation is the candidate item have numerous common features with the user's
preferred items,[77] while the second motivation is that the candidate item receives a high sentiment on its
features. For a preferred item, it is reasonable to believe that items with the same features will have a similar
function or utility. So, these items will also likely to be preferred by the user. On the other hand, for a
shared feature of two candidate items, other users may give positive sentiment to one of them while giving
negative sentiment to another. Clearly, the high evaluated item should be recommended to the user. Based
on these two motivations, a combination ranking score of similarity and sentiment rating can be constructed
for each candidate item.[76]

Except for the difficulty of the sentiment analysis itself, applying sentiment analysis on reviews or feedback
also faces the challenge of spam and biased reviews. One direction of work is focused on evaluating the
helpfulness of each review.[78] Review or feedback poorly written is hardly helpful for recommender
system. Besides, a review can be designed to hinder sales of a target product, thus be harmful to the
recommender system even it is well written.

Researchers also found that long and short forms of user-generated text should be treated differently. An
interesting result shows that short-form reviews are sometimes more helpful than long-form,[79] because it
is easier to filter out the noise in a short-form text. For the long-form text, the growing length of the text
does not always bring a proportionate increase in the number of features or sentiments in the text.
Lamba & Madhusudhan[80] introduce a nascent way to cater the information needs of today's library users
by repackaging the results from sentiment analysis of social media platforms like Twitter and provide it as a
consolidated time-based service in different formats. Further, they propose a new way of conducting
marketing in libraries using social media mining and sentiment analysis.

See also
Affective computing
Consumer sentiment
Emotion recognition
Friendly artificial intelligence
Multimodal sentiment analysis
Stylometry

References
1. Hamborg, Felix; Donnay, Karsten (2021). "NewsMTSC: A Dataset for (Multi-)Target-
dependent Sentiment Classification in Political News Articles" (https://aclanthology.org/202
1.eacl-main.142/). "Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the
Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume"
2. Vong Anh Ho, Duong Huynh-Cong Nguyen, Danh Hoang Nguyen, Linh Thi-Van Pham, Duc-
Vu Nguyen, Kiet Van Nguyen, Ngan Luu-Thuy Nguyen. "Emotion Recognition for
Vietnamese Social Media Text". In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference of the
Pacific Association for Computational Linguistics (PACLING 2019), Hanoi, Vietnam (2019).
3. Stone, Philip J., Dexter C. Dunphy, and Marshall S. Smith. "The general inquirer: A computer
approach to content analysis." MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1966).
4. Gottschalk, Louis August, and Goldine C. Gleser. The measurement of psychological states
through the content analysis of verbal behavior. Univ of California Press, 1969.
5. USA Issued 7,136,877 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITO
FF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=2&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=(foge
l.INNM.+AND+volcani.INNM.)&OS=in/fogel+and+in/volcani&RS=(IN/fogel+AND+IN/volcan
i)), Volcani, Yanon; & Fogel, David B., "System and method for determining and controlling
the impact of text", published June 28, 2001
6. Turney, Peter (2002). "Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to
Unsupervised Classification of Reviews". Proceedings of the Association for Computational
Linguistics. pp. 417–424. arXiv:cs.LG/0212032 (https://arxiv.org/abs/cs.LG/0212032).
7. Pang, Bo; Lee, Lillian; Vaithyanathan, Shivakumar (2002). "Thumbs up? Sentiment
Classification using Machine Learning Techniques" (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/llee/pa
pers/sentiment.home.html). Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural
Language Processing (EMNLP). pp. 79–86.
8. Pang, Bo; Lee, Lillian (2005). "Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment
categorization with respect to rating scales" (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/llee/papers/pan
g-lee-stars.home.html). Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
pp. 115–124.
9. Snyder, Benjamin; Barzilay, Regina (2007). "Multiple Aspect Ranking using the Good Grief
Algorithm" (http://people.csail.mit.edu/regina/my_papers/ggranker.ps). Proceedings of the
Joint Human Language Technology/North American Chapter of the ACL Conference (HLT-
NAACL). pp. 300–307.
10. Qu, Yan, James Shanahan, and Janyce Wiebe. "Exploring attitude and affect in text:
Theories and applications." In AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical report SS-04-07. AAAI
Press, Menlo Park, CA. 2004.
11. Vryniotis, Vasilis (2013). The importance of Neutral Class in Sentiment Analysis (http://blog.d
atumbox.com/the-importance-of-neutral-class-in-sentiment-analysis/).
12. Koppel, Moshe; Schler, Jonathan (2006). "The Importance of Neutral Examples for Learning
Sentiment". Computational Intelligence 22. pp. 100–109. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.84.9735 (https://c
iteseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.84.9735).
13. Ribeiro, Filipe Nunes; Araujo, Matheus (2010). "A Benchmark Comparison of State-of-the-
Practice Sentiment Analysis Methods" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28630205
9). Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems. 9 (4).
14. Taboada, Maite; Brooke, Julian (2011). "Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis" (htt
p://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2000518). Computational Linguistics. 37 (2): 272–274.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.188.5517 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.188.
5517). doi:10.1162/coli_a_00049 (https://doi.org/10.1162%2Fcoli_a_00049).
S2CID 3181362 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3181362).
15. Augustyniak, Łukasz; Szymański, Piotr; Kajdanowicz, Tomasz; Tuligłowicz, Włodzimierz
(2015-12-25). "Comprehensive Study on Lexicon-based Ensemble Classification Sentiment
Analysis" (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fe18010004). Entropy. 18 (1): 4.
Bibcode:2015Entrp..18....4A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015Entrp..18....4A).
doi:10.3390/e18010004 (https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fe18010004).
16. Mehmood, Yasir; Balakrishnan, Vimala (2020-01-01). "An enhanced lexicon-based
approach for sentiment analysis: a case study on illegal immigration" (https://doi.org/10.110
8/OIR-10-2018-0295). Online Information Review. 44 (5): 1097–1117. doi:10.1108/OIR-10-
2018-0295 (https://doi.org/10.1108%2FOIR-10-2018-0295). ISSN 1468-4527 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/issn/1468-4527). S2CID 221766042 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2
21766042).
17. Thelwall, Mike; Buckley, Kevan; Paltoglou, Georgios; Cai, Di; Kappas, Arvid (2010).
"Sentiment strength detection in short informal text" (http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~cm1993/pape
rs/SentiStrengthPreprint.doc). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology. 61 (12): 2544–2558. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.278.3863 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vi
ewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.278.3863). doi:10.1002/asi.21416 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fa
si.21416).
18. Pang, Bo; Lee, Lillian (2008). "4.1.2 Subjectivity Detection and Opinion Identification" (http://
www.cs.cornell.edu/home/llee/opinion-mining-sentiment-analysis-survey.html). Opinion
Mining and Sentiment Analysis. Now Publishers Inc.
19. Mihalcea, Rada; Banea, Carmen; Wiebe, Janyce (2007). "Learning Multilingual Subjective
Language via Cross-Lingual Projections" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100708065222/htt
p://www.cse.unt.edu/~rada/papers/mihalcea.acl07.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of the
Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL). pp. 976–983. Archived from the original (htt
p://www.cse.unt.edu/~rada/papers/mihalcea.acl07.pdf) (PDF) on 2010-07-08.
20. Su, Fangzhong; Markert, Katja (2008). "From Words to Senses: a Case Study in Subjectivity
Recognition" (http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/markert/Papers/Coling2008.pdf) (PDF).
Proceedings of Coling 2008, Manchester, UK.
21. Pang, Bo; Lee, Lillian (2004). "A Sentimental Education: Sentiment Analysis Using
Subjectivity Summarization Based on Minimum Cuts" (http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/llee/p
apers/cutsent.home.html). Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics
(ACL). pp. 271–278.
22. Wiebe, Janyce; Riloff, Ellen (2005). Gelbukh, Alexander (ed.). "Creating Subjective and
Objective Sentence Classifiers from Unannotated Texts" (https://link.springer.com/chapter/1
0.1007%2F978-3-540-30586-6_53). Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text
Processing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 3406: 486–
497. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30586-6_53 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-30586-6_5
3). ISBN 978-3-540-30586-6.
23. Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Geoffrey, Leech; Jan, Svartvik (1985). A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (General Grammar). Longman. pp. 175–
239. ISBN 1933108312.
24. Liu, Bing (2010). "Sentiment Analysis and Subjectivity" (http://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/FBS/NL
P-handbook-sentiment-analysis.pdf) (PDF). In Indurkhya, N.; Damerau, F. J. (eds.).
Handbook of Natural Language Processing (Second ed.).
25. Pang, Bo; Lee, Lillian (2008-07-06). "Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis" (https://www.n
owpublishers.com/article/Details/INR-011). Foundations and Trends in Information
Retrieval. 2 (1–2): 1–135. doi:10.1561/1500000011 (https://doi.org/10.1561%2F150000001
1). ISSN 1554-0669 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1554-0669). S2CID 207178694 (https://a
pi.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:207178694).
26. Riloff, Ellen; Wiebe, Janyce (2003-07-11). "Learning extraction patterns for subjective
expressions" (https://doi.org/10.3115%2F1119355.1119369). Proceedings of the 2003
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP '03. USA:
Association for Computational Linguistics. 10: 105–112. doi:10.3115/1119355.1119369 (http
s://doi.org/10.3115%2F1119355.1119369). S2CID 6541910 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:6541910).
27. Wiebe, Janyce; Riloff, Ellen (July 2011). "Finding Mutual Benefit between Subjectivity
Analysis and Information Extraction" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5959154). IEEE
Transactions on Affective Computing. 2 (4): 175–191. doi:10.1109/T-AFFC.2011.19 (https://d
oi.org/10.1109%2FT-AFFC.2011.19). ISSN 1949-3045 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1949-
3045). S2CID 16820846 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16820846).
28. Riloff, Ellen (1996-08-01). "An empirical study of automated dictionary construction for
information extraction in three domains" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0004-3702%2895%290
0123-9). Artificial Intelligence. 85 (1): 101–134. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(95)00123-9 (https://d
oi.org/10.1016%2F0004-3702%2895%2900123-9). ISSN 0004-3702 (https://www.worldcat.
org/issn/0004-3702).
29. Riloff, Ellen; Jones, Rosie (July 1999). "Learning dictionaries for information extraction by
multi-level bootstrapping" (https://aaai.org/Papers/AAAI/1999/AAAI99-068.pdf) (PDF). AAAI
'99/IAAI '99: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and
the Eleventh Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference Innovative
Applications of Artificial Intelligence: 474–479.
30. Thelen, Michael; Riloff, Ellen (2002-07-06). "A bootstrapping method for learning semantic
lexicons using extraction pattern contexts" (https://doi.org/10.3115%2F1118693.1118721).
Proceedings of the ACL-02 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language
Processing - Volume 10. EMNLP '02. USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10:
214–221. doi:10.3115/1118693.1118721 (https://doi.org/10.3115%2F1118693.1118721).
S2CID 137155 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:137155).
31. Liu, Bing (2012-05-23). "Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining" (https://www.morganclayp
ool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00416ED1V01Y201204HLT016). Synthesis Lectures on Human
Language Technologies. 5 (1): 1–167. doi:10.2200/S00416ED1V01Y201204HLT016 (http
s://doi.org/10.2200%2FS00416ED1V01Y201204HLT016). ISSN 1947-4040 (https://www.wo
rldcat.org/issn/1947-4040).
32. Deng, Shangkun; Mitsubuchi, Takashi; Shioda, Kei; Shimada, Tatsuro; Sakurai, Akito
(December 2011). "Combining Technical Analysis with Sentiment Analysis for Stock Price
Prediction" (https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/dasc.2011.138). 2011 IEEE Ninth International
Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing. IEEE: 800–807.
doi:10.1109/dasc.2011.138 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2Fdasc.2011.138). ISBN 978-1-4673-
0006-3. S2CID 15262023 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:15262023).
33. Nguyen, Kiet Van; Nguyen, Vu Duc; Nguyen, Phu X.V.; Truong, Tham T.H.; Nguyen, Ngan L-
T. (2018-10-01). "UIT-VSFC: Vietnamese Students' Feedback Corpus for Sentiment
Analysis" (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8573337). 2018 10th International
Conference on Knowledge and Systems Engineering (KSE). Vietnam: IEEE: 19–24.
doi:10.1109/KSE.2018.8573337 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FKSE.2018.8573337).
ISBN 978-1-5386-6113-0. S2CID 56172224 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5617
2224).
34. Yu, Hong; Hatzivassiloglou, Vasileios (2003-07-11). "Towards answering opinion questions:
separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences" (https://doi.o
rg/10.3115%2F1119355.1119372). Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing. EMNLP '03. USA: Association for Computational
Linguistics: 129–136. doi:10.3115/1119355.1119372 (https://doi.org/10.3115%2F1119355.1
119372).
35. Hu, Minqing; Liu, Bing (2004). "Mining and Summarizing Customer Reviews" (http://www.cs.
uic.edu/~liub/FBS/sentiment-analysis.html). Proceedings of KDD 2004.
36. Cataldi, Mario; Ballatore, Andrea; Tiddi, Ilaria; Aufaure, Marie-Aude (2013-06-22). "Good
location, terrible food: detecting feature sentiment in user-generated reviews". Social
Network Analysis and Mining. 3 (4): 1149–1163. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.396.9313 (https://citeseer
x.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.396.9313). doi:10.1007/s13278-013-0119-7 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13278-013-0119-7). ISSN 1869-5450 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/1869-5450). S2CID 5025282 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5025282).
37. Liu, Bing; Hu, Minqing; Cheng, Junsheng (2005). "Opinion Observer: Analyzing and
Comparing Opinions on the Web" (http://www.cs.uic.edu/~liub/FBS/sentiment-analysis.html).
Proceedings of WWW 2005.
38. Zhai, Zhongwu; Liu, Bing; Xu, Hua; Jia, Peifa (2011-01-01). Huang, Joshua Zhexue; Cao,
Longbing; Srivastava, Jaideep (eds.). Constrained LDA for Grouping Product Features in
Opinion Mining. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 448–
459. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.221.5178 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.
221.5178). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20841-6_37 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-642-2084
1-6_37). ISBN 978-3-642-20840-9.
39. Titov, Ivan; McDonald, Ryan (2008-01-01). Modeling Online Reviews with Multi-grain Topic
Models. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web. WWW '08.
New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 111–120. arXiv:0801.1063 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1063).
doi:10.1145/1367497.1367513 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F1367497.1367513). ISBN 978-1-
60558-085-2. S2CID 13609860 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13609860).
40. Liang, Bin; et al. (2022). "Aspect-based sentiment analysis via affective knowledge
enhanced graph convolutional networks". Knowledge-Based Systems. 235: 107643.
doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107643 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.knosys.2021.107643).
S2CID 237258427 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:237258427).
41. Ma, Yukun; et al. (2018). "Targeted aspect-based sentiment analysis via embedding
commonsense knowledge into an attentive LSTM". Proceedings of AAAI. pp. 5876–5883.
42. Sharma, Raksha; Somani; Kumar; Bhattacharyya (2017). "Sentiment Intensity Ranking
among Adjectives Using Sentiment Bearing Word Embeddings" (https://aclanthology.org/D1
7-1058.pdf) (PDF). Association for Computational Linguistics: 547–552.
43. M. S. Akhtar, A. Ekbal and E. Cambria, "How Intense Are You? Predicting Intensities of
Emotions and Sentiments using Stacked Ensemble [Application Notes]," in IEEE
Computational Intelligence Magazine, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 64-75, Feb. 2020, doi:
10.1109/MCI.2019.2954667.
44. X. Ouyang, P. Zhou, C. H. Li and L. Liu, "Sentiment Analysis Using Convolutional Neural
Network," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology;
Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure
Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 2015, pp. 2359-2364, doi:
10.1109/CIT/IUCC/DASC/PICOM.2015.349.
45. Y. Santur, "Sentiment Analysis Based on Gated Recurrent Unit," 2019 International Artificial
Intelligence and Data Processing Symposium (IDAP), 2019, pp. 1-5, doi:
10.1109/IDAP.2019.8875985.
46. Cambria, E; Schuller, B; Xia, Y; Havasi, C (2013). "New avenues in opinion mining and
sentiment analysis". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 28 (2): 15–21. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.688.1384 (htt
ps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.688.1384).
doi:10.1109/MIS.2013.30 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FMIS.2013.30). S2CID 12104996 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:12104996).
47. Ortony, Andrew; Clore, G; Collins, A (1988). The Cognitive Structure of Emotions (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20151123055038/http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/courses/cg207/rea
dings/Cognitive_Structure_of_Emotions_exerpt.pdf) (PDF). Cambridge Univ. Press.
Archived from the original (http://www.cogsci.northwestern.edu/courses/cg207/readings/Cog
nitive_Structure_of_Emotions_exerpt.pdf) (PDF) on 2015-11-23.
48. Stevenson, Ryan; Mikels, Joseph; James, Thomas (2007). "Characterization of the Affective
Norms for English Words by Discrete Emotional Categories" (http://indiana.edu/~panlab/pap
ers/SraMjaJtw_ANEW.pdf) (PDF). Behavior Research Methods. 39 (4): 1020–1024.
doi:10.3758/bf03192999 (https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fbf03192999). PMID 18183921 (https://p
ubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18183921). S2CID 6673690 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpu
sID:6673690).
49. Sahlgren, Magnus; Karlgren, Jussi; Eriksson, Gunnar (2007). "Valence annotation based on
seeds in word space". Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic
Evaluations (SemEval-2007).
50. Kim, S. M.; Hovy, E. H. (2006). "Identifying and Analyzing Judgment Opinions." (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20110629121135/http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P06/P06-2063.pdf) (PDF).
Proceedings of the Human Language Technology / North American Association of
Computational Linguistics conference (HLT-NAACL 2006). New York, NY. Archived from the
original (http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P06/P06-2063.pdf) (PDF) on 2011-06-29.
51. Dey, Lipika; Haque, S. K. Mirajul (2008). "Opinion Mining from Noisy Text Data" (http://portal.
acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1390763&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=92244761&CFTOKEN=
30578437). Proceedings of the second workshop on Analytics for noisy unstructured text
data, p.83-90.
52. Cambria, E; Hussain, A (2015). Sentic Computing: A Common-Sense-Based Framework for
Concept-Level Sentiment Analysis (http://springer.com/9783319236544). Springer.
ISBN 9783319236544.
53. Akcora, Cuneyt Gurcan; Bayir, Murat Ali; Demirbas, Murat; Ferhatosmanoglu, Hakan (2010).
"Identifying breakpoints in public opinion" (http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1964867).
SigKDD, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Social Media Analytics.
54. Cambria, Erik; Liu, Qian; Decherchi, Sergio; Xing, Frank; Kwok, Kenneth (2022). "SenticNet
7: A Commonsense-based Neurosymbolic AI Framework for Explainable Sentiment
Analysis" (https://sentic.net/senticnet-7.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings of LREC. pp. 3829–3839.
55. Borth, Damian; Ji, Rongrong; Chen, Tao; Breuel, Thomas; Chang, Shih-Fu (2013). "Large-
scale Visual Sentiment Ontology and Detectors Using Adjective Noun Pairs" (https://visual-s
entiment-ontology.appspot.com). Proceedings of ACM Int. Conference on Multimedia.
pp. 223–232.
56. Socher, Richard; Perelygin, Alex; Wu, Jean Y.; Chuang, Jason; Manning, Christopher D.; Ng,
Andrew Y.; Potts, Christopher (2013). "Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality
over a sentiment treebank". In Proceedings of EMNLP: 1631–1642.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.593.7427 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.593.
7427).
57. "Case Study: Advanced Sentiment Analysis" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190237/
http://paragonpoll.com/sentiment-analysis-systems-case-study/). Archived from the original
(http://paragonpoll.com/sentiment-analysis-systems-case-study/) on 28 Sep 2013. Retrieved
18 October 2013.
58. Mozetič, Igor; Grčar, Miha; Smailović, Jasmina (2016-05-05). "Multilingual Twitter Sentiment
Classification: The Role of Human Annotators" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC4858191). PLOS ONE. 11 (5): e0155036. arXiv:1602.07563 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.0
7563). Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1155036M (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PLoSO..11
55036M). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155036 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0155
036). ISSN 1932-6203 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1932-6203). PMC 4858191 (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4858191). PMID 27149621 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/27149621).
59. Ogneva, M. "How Companies Can Use Sentiment Analysis to Improve Their Business" (htt
p://mashable.com/2010/04/19/sentiment-analysis/). Mashable. Retrieved 2012-12-13.
60. Roebuck, K. (2012-10-24). Sentiment Analysis: High-impact Strategies - What You Need to
Know: Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors (https://books.google.com/
books?id=kqsNBwAAQBAJ). ISBN 9781743049457.
61. Karlgren, Jussi, Magnus Sahlgren, Fredrik Olsson, Fredrik Espinoza, and Ola Hamfors.
"Usefulness of sentiment analysis." In European Conference on Information Retrieval, pp.
426-435. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.
62. Karlgren, Jussi. "The relation between author mood and affect to sentiment in text and text
genre." In Proceedings of the fourth workshop on Exploiting semantic annotations in
information retrieval, pp. 9-10. ACM, 2011.
63. Karlgren, Jussi. "Affect, appeal, and sentiment as factors influencing interaction with
multimedia information (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1042636/FULLTEXT01.
pdf)." In Proceedings of Theseus/ImageCLEF workshop on visual information retrieval
evaluation, pp. 8-11. 2009.
64. Amigó, Enrique, Adolfo Corujo, Julio Gonzalo, Edgar Meij, and Maarten de Rijke. "Overview
of RepLab 2012: Evaluating Online Reputation Management Systems." In CLEF (Online
Working Notes/Labs/Workshop). 2012.
65. Amigó, Enrique, Jorge Carrillo De Albornoz, Irina Chugur, Adolfo Corujo, Julio Gonzalo,
Tamara Martín, Edgar Meij, Maarten de Rijke, and Damiano Spina. "Overview of replab
2013: Evaluating online reputation monitoring systems." In International Conference of the
Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages, pp. 333-352. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2013.
66. Amigó, Enrique, Jorge Carrillo-de-Albornoz, Irina Chugur, Adolfo Corujo, Julio Gonzalo,
Edgar Meij, Maarten de Rijke, and Damiano Spina. "Overview of replab 2014: author
profiling and reputation dimensions for online reputation management." In International
Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages, pp. 307-
322. Springer International Publishing, 2014.
67. Wright, Alex. "Mining the Web for Feelings, Not Facts" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/
technology/internet/24emotion.html?_r=1), New York Times, 2009-08-23. Retrieved on
2009-10-01.
68. "Sentiment Analysis on Reddit" (http://news.humanele.com/sentiment-analysis-reddit/).
2014-09-30. Retrieved 10 October 2014.
69. Kirkpatrick, Marshall. " (https://readwrite.com/2009/04/15/whats_next_in_social_media_mon
itoring/), ReadWriteWeb, 2009-04-15. Retrieved on 2009-10-01.
70. CORDIS. "Collective emotions in cyberspace (CYBEREMOTIONS)" (http://cordis.europa.e
u/fetch?CALLER=FP7_PROJ_EN&ACTION=D&DOC=1&CAT=PROJ&QUERY=011e4ea3
3ef2:358b:41dc0328&RCN=89032), European Commission, 2009-02-03. Retrieved on
2010-12-13.
71. Condliffe, Jamie. "Flaming drives online social networks " (https://www.newscientist.com/arti
cle/dn19821-flaming-drives-online-social-networks.html), New Scientist, 2010-12-07.
Retrieved on 2010-12-13.
72. Tumasjan, Andranik; O.Sprenger, Timm; G.Sandner, Philipp; M.Welpe, Isabell (2010).
"Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment" (h
ttp://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM10/paper/viewFile/1441/1852).
"Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media"
73. Wood, Ian B.; Varela, Pedro L.; Bollen, Johan; Rocha, Luis M.; Gonçalves-Sá, Joana (2017).
"Human Sexual Cycles are Driven by Culture and Match Collective Moods" (https://www.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5740080). Scientific Reports. 7 (1): 17973. arXiv:1707.03959
(https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03959). Bibcode:2017NatSR...717973W (https://ui.adsabs.harvar
d.edu/abs/2017NatSR...717973W). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18262-5 (https://doi.org/10.103
8%2Fs41598-017-18262-5). PMC 5740080 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
5740080). PMID 29269945 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29269945).
74. Korkontzelos, Ioannis; Nikfarjam, Azadeh; Shardlow, Matthew; Sarker, Abeed; Ananiadou,
Sophia; Gonzalez, Graciela H. (2016). "Analysis of the effect of sentiment analysis on
extracting adverse drug reactions from tweets and forum posts" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
v/pmc/articles/PMC4981644). Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 62: 148–158.
doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2016.06.007 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jbi.2016.06.007). PMC 4981644
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981644). PMID 27363901 (https://pubmed.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27363901).
75. Tang, Huifeng; Tan, Songbo; Cheng, Xueqi (2009). "A survey on sentiment detection of
reviews" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180524004208/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8f1
b/9b97183b8aa2caa0fb6c9563b14daabe8316.pdf) (PDF). Expert Systems with
Applications. 36 (7): 10760–10773. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.02.063 (https://doi.org/10.101
6%2Fj.eswa.2009.02.063). S2CID 2178380 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2178
380). Archived from the original (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8f1b/9b97183b8aa2caa0fb
6c9563b14daabe8316.pdf) (PDF) on 2018-05-24.
76. Jakob, Niklas, et al. "Beyond the stars: exploiting free-text user reviews to improve the
accuracy of movie recommendations." Proceedings of the 1st international CIKM workshop
on Topic-sentiment analysis for mass opinion. ACM, 2009.
77. Minqing, Hu; Liu, Bing (2004). "Mining opinion features in customer reviews" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20180524004041/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee6c/726b55c66d4c222556
cfae62a4eb69aa86b7.pdf) (PDF). AAAI. 4 (4). S2CID 5724860 (https://api.semanticscholar.o
rg/CorpusID:5724860). Archived from the original (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee6c/726
b55c66d4c222556cfae62a4eb69aa86b7.pdf) (PDF) on 2018-05-24.
78. Liu, Yang; Huang, Xiangji; An, Aijun; Yu, Xiaohui (2008). "Modeling and predicting the
helpfulness of online reviews" (http://www.yorku.ca/xhyu/papers/ICDM2008.pdf) (PDF).
ICDM'08. Eighth IEEE international conference on Data mining. IEEE. pp. 443–452.
doi:10.1109/ICDM.2008.94 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FICDM.2008.94). ISBN 978-0-7695-
3502-9. S2CID 18235238 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:18235238).
79. Bermingham, Adam; Smeaton, Alan F. (2010). Classifying sentiment in microblogs: is brevity
an advantage? (http://doras.dcu.ie/15663/1/cikm1079-bermingham.pdf) (PDF). Proceedings
of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.
p. 1833. doi:10.1145/1871437.1871741 (https://doi.org/10.1145%2F1871437.1871741).
ISBN 9781450300995. S2CID 2084603 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:208460
3).
80. Lamba, Manika; Madhusudhan, Margam (2018). "Application of sentiment analysis in
libraries to provide temporal information service: a case study on various facets of
productivity". Social Network Analysis and Mining. 8 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s13278-018-
0541-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs13278-018-0541-y). S2CID 53047128 (https://api.sema
nticscholar.org/CorpusID:53047128).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sentiment_analysis&oldid=1158565518"