PLOS ONE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Enhancing machine learning-based sentiment

analysis through feature extraction
techniques
Noura A. Semary1, Wesam Ahmed1,2, Khalid Amin1, Paweł Pławiak ID3,4*,
Mohamed Hammad ID1,5*
1 Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Computers and Information, Menoufia University, Shibin
El Kom, Egypt, 2 Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Computers and Artificial Intelligence,
South Valley University, Hurghada, Egypt, 3 Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Computer Science
and Telecommunications, Cracow University of Technology, Krakow, Poland, 4 Institute of Theoretical and
Applied Informatics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Gliwice, Poland, 5 EIAS Data Science Lab, College of
Computer and Information Sciences, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
a1111111111
* [email protected] (PP); [email protected] (MH)
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
A crucial part of sentiment classification is featuring extraction because it involves extracting
valuable information from text data, which affects the model’s performance. The goal of this
paper is to help in selecting a suitable feature extraction method to enhance the perfor-
OPEN ACCESS
mance of sentiment analysis tasks. In order to provide directions for future machine learning
Citation: A. Semary N, Ahmed W, Amin K, Pławiak and feature extraction research, it is important to analyze and summarize feature extraction
P, Hammad M (2024) Enhancing machine
techniques methodically from a machine learning standpoint. There are several methods
learning-based sentiment analysis through feature
extraction techniques. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0294968. under consideration, including Bag-of-words (BOW), Word2Vector, N-gram, Term Fre-
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 quency- Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF), Hashing Vectorizer (HV), and Global vec-
Editor: Nadeem Sarwar, Bahria University - Lahore tor for word representation (GloVe). To prove the ability of each feature extractor, we
Campus, PAKISTAN applied it to the Twitter US airlines and Amazon musical instrument reviews datasets.
Received: September 22, 2023 Finally, we trained a random forest classifier using 70% of the training data and 30% of the
testing data, enabling us to evaluate and compare the performance using different metrics.
Accepted: November 12, 2023
Based on our results, we find that the TD-IDF technique demonstrates superior perfor-
Published: February 14, 2024
mance, with an accuracy of 99% in the Amazon reviews dataset and 96% in the Twitter US
Copyright: © 2024 A. Semary et al. This is an open airlines dataset. This study underscores the paramount significance of feature extraction in
access article distributed under the terms of the
sentiment analysis, endowing pragmatic insights to elevate model performance and steer
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and future research pursuits.
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.

Data Availability Statement: All Data are available

at: https://appen.com/pre-labeled-datasets/ and
https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/eswarchandt/
amazon-music-reviews. 1. Introduction
Funding: The author(s) received no specific Public opinion plays a significant role in business operations and product perception. Addi-
funding for this work. tionally, since it explains human behaviour and how other people’s opinions affect it, public
Competing interests: The authors have declared opinion analysis is very helpful to governments. The application of sentiment analysis holds
that no competing interests exist. significant value in discerning the sentiment and perspective expressed in textual material

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 1 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

[1–3]. The problem can be framed as either a binary or multi-class classification task. Binary
sentiment analysis separates texts into positive and negative classes, while multiclass senti-
ment analysis separates them into fine-grained categories [4, 5]. Sentiment analysis can be
done on social media platforms like Twitter and websites, including comments, forums,
blogs, and microblogs. The analysis of sentiment is usually performed by applying a rule-
based system or a machine learning system. In recent years, machine learning systems have
become increasingly popular because they are more versatile and easier to apply than tradi-
tional rule-based systems. Machine learning algorithms are trained to recognize underlying
patterns in documents in order to classify them [6, 7]. Sentiment analysis based on machine
learning involves three steps: feature extraction, feature selection, and machine learning
classifier. The selection of feature extraction for better outcomes in many natural language
processing (NLP) tasks, especially in sentiment analysis, is vital [8, 9]. Feature extraction is
the methodological procedure of identifying and converting pertinent material from its
original form into a more succinct and significant representation, with the purpose of facili-
tating analysis [10, 11].
One of the major challenges in sentiment classification tasks is the choice of feature
extraction technique. In the analysis process, features are represented as a single unit and
used to classify documents into the corresponding polarities [12, 13]. As a result of the large
number of features, the overall system will be impacted by a heavy processing load, and the
use of irrelevant features produces overfitting or underfitting models of classifiers. The sys-
tem’s performance is optimal when the feature set is considerably small but informative and
accurate. Text embeddings or feature extraction techniques map text data into vectors,
which can be a set of real numbers (a vector) that can be used as input to a machine learning
model. There are numerous word representation models now in use. Based on the word dis-
tribution data, the models can be categorized as either traditional models or static models,
according to [14, 15]. Depending on the specific feature extraction technique used, different
types of information can be extracted from the text data. This study offers the following
research points:
1. The use of different techniques for feature extraction is investigated for sentiment analysis
tasks and provides a useful resource for assessing the strengths and limitations of different
feature extraction approaches and making informed choices.
2. We explore the exact relationship between feature extraction, classification performance,
and the training time of the methods.
3. Providing a discussion on how the accuracy of the machine learning algorithms changes
with different feature extractions. It is still an unsolved problem and an unanswered ques-
tion on how to select a suitable feature extraction technique to be used to obtain the best
performance for capturing sentiment in different social media datasets.
4. In this study, we uncover which feature extraction technique is most effective for sentiment
analysis tasks as well as the implications of our findings for practical applications such as
monitoring social media sites, among other areas.
As for the rest of the study, it is arranged as follows: The background literature section pres-
ents relevant sentiment analysis work. The proposed system section explains the methodology
and details of the study. The experimental results section displays the results. In discussion sec-
tion, the outcomes are discussed. The conclusion section includes a summary of the paper’s
findings and future work.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 2 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

2. Background literature
This section reviews relevant studies on feature extraction for sentiment analysis using
machine learning models.

2.1 Previous studies

For sentiment analysis tasks, most of the feature extraction algorithms have been used with dif-
ferent machine learning models, but few studies have looked at their impact on their perfor-
mance. A comparative study of sentiment analysis is shown in Table 1. Comparing and
contrasting prior research will enable the present study to explore a different area that has not
been discussed previously. The n-gram and term frequency-inverse document frequency
(TF-IDF) are widely recognized as prominent feature extraction strategies in machine learning
models, as seen by their prevalence in numerous prior studies.
Ahmed and Ahmed [16] applied TF-IDF, random forest (RF), Naïve Bayes (NB), and fea-
ture extraction to the collected fake news articles to classify them into positive and negative
sentiments. Among the individual classifiers, the NB was the best and achieved the highest
accuracy (89.30%).
Gaur et al. [17] used a machine learning algorithm based on the NB Classifier with TF-IDF
feature extraction to classify the Twitter sentiment 140 dataset. Based on performance metrics
including precision, recall, and accuracy, the suggested model’s results showed improved accu-
racy (84.44%) and precision.
Qi and Shabrina [18] extracted data relating to COVID-19 from Twitter users in England’s
major cities. This study compares machine learning models as its main objective, such as mul-
tinominal Naïve Bayes (MNB), RF, and support vector classification (SVC), with lexicon-
based approaches such as Vader and Textblob using two feature extraction methods (Word2-
Vec embedding and TF-IDF). Overall, the SVC with TF-IDF had better accuracy than the
other models.
Al sari et al. [19] created three different datasets from social media platforms to analyze the
impressions about Saudi cruises. The methodology of the study is performed by applying

Table 1. Literature survey of sentiment analysis.

Ref. Dataset Feature Extraction Model Results
Ahmed and Ahmed Collected news articles TF-IDF NB Accuracy = 89.30%
[16]
Gaur et al. [17] Twitter sentiment 140 TF-IDF NB Accuracy = 84.44%
Qi and Shabrina Collected tweets about TF-IDF, and MNB, SVC, RF, Vader, and SVC with TF–IDF outperforms others with accuracy = 71%
[18] COVID-19 Word2Vec Textblob
Al sari et al. [19] Instagram, Snapchat, and Unigrams MLP, NB, RF, SVM, and NB algorithm in Twitter with Over-sampling technique
Twitter datasets voting achieves accuracy = 85.26%
Mukherjee et al. Amazon reviews TF-IDF MNB, SVM, and ANN ANN + Negation classifier performs the best with
[20] accuracy = 96.32%
Noori [21] Customer reviews TF-IDF NB, SVM, DT, and KNN Best accuracy reported for DT = 98.9%
Zahoor and Rohilla Collected tweets about N-gram NB, SVM, RF, and LSTM NB outperforms others on most datasets with
[22] different events accuracy = 96.8%
Samuel et al. [23] COVID-19 tweets N-gram NB and LR NB outperforms LR with accuracy = 91.43%
Kumar et al. [24] Book reviews BOW, and NB, ME, and SVM SVM has the highest accuracy = 78%
Word2Vec
Zarisfi et al. [25] Twitter datasets TF-IDF SVM, MNB and hybrid The hybrid method yields a better classification with
algorithm accuracy = 85.92%
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t001

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 3 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

machine learning algorithms such as multilayer perceptron (MLP), NB, voting, SVM, RF, and
the n-grams feature extraction technique. The RF algorithm achieved 100% classification accu-
racy with oversampled Snapchat data.
Mukherjee et al. [20] presented a customized algorithm for detecting explicit negation. Dif-
ferent machine learning algorithms, such as NB, SVM, and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN),
were performed on Amazon reviews to analyze the sentiments. The methodology of TF-IDF
was employed to extract features. The ANN with a negative classifier achieved the best accu-
racy (96.32%).
Noori [21] proposed a new approach to classify customer sentiments. The paper collected
customer reviews from an international hotel. The reviews are processed, and then the TF-IDF
extractor is applied to build the document vectors and then trained into SVM, ANN, NB, k-
nearest neighbor (K-NN), decision tree (DT), and C4.5 models. The result of the DT model is
an accuracy of 98.9% with the number of features (1800), and this model performed better
than others.
Zahoor and Rohilla [22] used NB, SVM, long short-term memory networks (LSTM), and
RF classifiers and compared the findings. The N-gram extraction was used after preprocessing
the datasets. The NB model has the highest accuracy on most datasets, such as the BJP and ML
Khattar datasets. Samuel et al. [23] used NB and logistic regression (LR) models on tweets
about COVID-19. The tweets are transformed into a text corpus, and then the most frequent
words are identified using N-grams. Their results indicated a high accuracy of 91% with the
NB method and an accuracy of 74% with LR for short tweets, and longer tweets performed rel-
atively worse for both models.
Kumar et al. [24] examined how gender and age affected the customer reviews that had
been gathered. Maximum entropy (ME), SVM, and LSTM models are applied. The NB, ME,
and SVM algorithms all employ the Bag of Words (BOW) feature extraction, while word2vec
is used in the LSTM model. The best accuracy for female data is with a group over 50.
Zarisfi et al. [25] used SVM and MNB with TF-IDF extraction on four Twitter datasets,
namely the Strict Obama-McCain Debate dataset, the Obama-McCain Debate dataset, the
STS-Gold dataset, and the Stanford testing dataset. Semantic scoring based on tweet class,
semantic similarity, SWN scoring, and TF-IDF methods have been suggested for represent-
ing the features in the vector space. In three datasets, the proposed method outperformed
the MNB algorithm. The MNB algorithm performs the best of all methods in the STS
dataset.

2.2 Gap in literature

Previous studies indicate that there is a paucity of literature that needs to be discussed. There is
a limited range of techniques used for feature extraction in previous works. The aim of this
paper is to address this gap by evaluating different feature extraction techniques on the same
dataset when using sentiment classification to choose the most suitable method. We want the
best possible results when doing classification, so the method that we choose for feature extrac-
tion is important.

3. Proposed system
This section addresses the description of the datasets and preprocessing steps, as well as the
feature extraction techniques, the SMOTE technique, and the classification model. Fig 1 illus-
trates the architectural design of our experiment, while Algorithm 1 provides a summary of
our proposed system.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 4 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Fig 1. The architecture of the proposed model for sentiment classification.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g001

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 5 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Algorithm 1. Framework of Our Proposed System.

Input: Raw dataset D
Output: Sentiment (Positive or Negative or Neutral)
Begin
Clean input D (remove special symbols, stop-words, emoji,
URL, tokenization, etc)
Assign sentiment labels to D
Apply feature extraction to transform D into a feature vector
Apply the SMOTE technique to balance the dataset
Classify D using the random forest model
End

3.1 Dataset description

For the experiments, we picked two different datasets that consist of real-world user feedback,
reflecting the opinions and sentiments of actual customers and users, making them a highly
demanded source for researchers in the field. The first dataset is Twitter US Airlines, which
CrowdFlower created in 2017. It offers a comprehensive collection of customer reviews of six
significant American airlines and contains various features, as shown in Table 2. It has 14640
instances, out of which 2363 are positive tweets, 9178 are negative tweets, and the remaining
3099 are neutral tweets [26]. The second dataset is Amazon musical instrument reviews col-
lected in 2020, which offer a rich collection of customer feedback and contain various features,
as shown in Table 3. It has 10261 instances out of which 9022 are positive reviews, 467 are neg-
ative reviews, and the remaining 772 are neutral reviews [27]. The datasets are available at
https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/crowdflower/twitter-airline-sentiment and https://www.
kaggle.com/datasets/eswarchandt/amazon-music-reviews. It can be observed that the two
datasets have imbalanced data. Figs 2 and 3 illustrate the distribution of sentiment classes in
the datasets.

3.2 Text preprocessing

The preprocessing step is essential in the sentiment analysis process. It transforms text into a
format suitable for machine learning algorithms [28]. The preprocessing of text includes
removing retweets because duplicate tweets might skew word frequency and increase the
amount of space needed for running the experiment. In the next step, URLs should be
removed since they have no meaning and won’t affect sentiment. Removing punctuation,
emojis, non-alphanumeric characters, and stop words is critical because they are not helpful
for analysis, and in tokenization, the entire text or paragraph is divided into smaller units,
known as tokens [29]. Finally, the lemmatization process removes inflectional endings and

Table 2. Feature description of the Twitter US airlines dataset.

Features Description
Airline Sentiment A numerical attribute that quantifies the amount of confidence in the classification of a
Confidence tweet into one of three distinct classes.
Negative Reason The rationale for deeming this tweet as having a negative connotation.
Negative Reason The degree of certainty in establishing the underlying cause of a negative tweet.
Confidence
Airline The airline company’s name.
Retweet Count The quantification of retweets received by a specific tweet.
Text Tweet initially published by the user.
Airline Sentiment Labels for tweets (positive, negative, neutral).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 6 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Table 3. Feature description of the Amazon dataset.

Features Description
ReviewerID ID of the reviewer
ASIN ID of the product
Reviewer name Name of the reviewer
Helpful Helpfulness rating of the review
Review text Text of the review
Overall Rating of the product
Summary Summary of the review.
UnixReviewTime Time of the review (unix time).
ReviewTime Time of the review (raw)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t003

returns the base or dictionary form of words, and the stemming process reduces words into
word stems because some of the words might not be proper in the language. The WordNetLe-
mmatizer lemmatization and PorterStemmer stemming were used for this study. Table 4
shows some examples before and after the preprocessing step from Amazon musical instru-
ment reviews.

3.3 Feature extraction

In this study, the main contribution is the extraction of important features from datasets. The
process of feature extraction holds significant importance in text processing as it effectively
decreases the dimensionality of the feature space by selectively emphasizing the crucial aspects.
Hence, in this work, we employed six different feature extraction methods, including Bow,
TF-IDF, n-grams with a range of (1,2) which includes both unigrams (individual words) and

Fig 2. Sentiment data distribution of the Twitter dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g002

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 7 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Fig 3. Sentiment data distribution of the Amazon dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g003

bigrams (pairs of consecutive words), global vector for word representation (GloVe), hashing
vectorizer (HV), and word2vec, to extract features from the datasets, as shown in Fig 4. The
selection of these specific feature extraction techniques is based on their established effective-
ness in sentiment analysis tasks and their ability to capture different aspects of text data [29].
The chosen feature extraction techniques can improve classification or prediction accuracy
and maximize the utility and relevance of the feature extraction process, leading to more
meaningful and impactful outcomes.
3.3.1 TF-IDF. This method is derived from language modeling theory. According to the
theory, words in a text can be divided into two categories based on their eliteness: those with
eliteness and those without. Its calculation is based on a combination of two metrics, one of
which measures how many times a word appears in a collection of documents, and the other
measures the word’s inverse document frequency. In a document, term frequency (TF) counts
the number of times words appear, and inverse document frequency (IDF) is a method that
helps distinguish and classify documents easily by giving importance or weightage to words
that are unique to a certain set of documents [30]. Words in the document with high or low-
frequency terms are given more weight by the IDF. Combining TF and IDF is known as
TF-IDF. According to Eq (1), the mathematical representation of the weight of a term in a

Table 4. Some examples of Amazon reviews dataset.

Reviews Reviews after preprocessing
Not much to write about here, but it does exac. . . much write exactli suppos filter pop sound rec. . .
The product does exactly as it should and is q. . . product exactli quit affordablei realiz doubl. . .
The primary job of this device is to block the. . . primari job devic block breath would otherwis. . .
Nice windscreen protects my MXL mic and preven. . . nice windscreen protect mxl mic prevent pop th. . .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t004

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 8 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Fig 4. The general structure of the word representation models.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g004

document by the TF-IDF method.

� �
N
Wðd; tÞ ¼ TFðd; tÞ∗log ð1Þ
dfðtÞ

In this equation, N denotes the number of documents, and df (t) indicates how many docu-
ments contain the term t in the corpus. The initial term introduces an enhancement to recall,
while the subsequent term contributes to precision. Although TF-IDF endeavors to address
the issue of frequently occurring terms in a document, it is not without its constraints; for
instance, when each word is displayed independently as an index, it is incapable of considering
word similarity. However, TF-IDF vectors exhibit superior accuracy compared to alternative
methodologies.
3.3.2 BOW. It is one of the simplest feature extraction model categories, and it does not
take the order of the words into account. This model is a method of encoding text data. It is
simple to use and learn, and it has proven to work effectively for document classification and
language modeling. There are some limitations of BOW models like sparsity, and the complete
disregard for word order ignores the context, which in turn ignores the semantics of the words
used in the document [31]. Three steps describe how this model works: the first step is text
tokenization, then tokenizing each sentence into words and counting how many times each
word appears in each sentence, and finally, constructing the model by creating a vector to
identify If the word is frequently used, it might be set to 1, otherwise 0 and generate the
output.
3.3.3 N-Grams. The n-gram technique consists of any sequence of n-words that occur “in
that order” in a text set. This technique was the first to attempt to impose a window to capture
the ordering among words. The n-gram method ignores individual words and instead focuses

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 9 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

on multiword tokens and their ordering within the context window. The N-gram does not
necessarily capture contextual information, but it is effective at capturing word ordering
among words. When these words appear together, they may have an entirely different meaning
than when they appear separately. This model is relatively easy to obtain, and a manageable-
sized vector can be used to represent the text [32]. In this study, the n-gram with a range of (1,
2) is used, and this range refers to a combination of unigrams (single words) and bigrams
(pairs of consecutive words) in a given text.
3.3.4 Hashing vectorizer. In the hashing vectorization (HV) method, collections of
review text are transformed into a matrix of token occurrences. A hashing vectorizer returns
the account for every token in the document, so it is no different from a regular BOW model
in terms of how text features are turned into a numeric representation. However, hashing vec-
torizers have the following advantages: they scale better with large document sets and work
well with batch processing [33]. The limitation is the potential for hash collisions, and the
larger feature space can introduce additional computational overhead, leading to longer train-
ing times.
3.3.5 Static word embedding. Word embeddings are numerical representations of
words or phrases that depict the relationships between them in a multidimensional space as
well as their semantic meaning. These representations are typically learned from large
amounts of text data using neural networks. There are some key characteristics of word
embedding such as similar words having the same embedding, values and each word having
a distinct word embedding or vector, which is only a list of numbers for each word. This
study uses the word2vec model and the glove model, two of the most popular algorithms for
word embeddings. The first model is the Word2Vec Model was first introduced by [34], is
popular and widely used in learning word embeddings from raw text. Based on the idea of
distributed representation of words, word2vec (word embeddings) uses a shallow neural
network to learn word embeddings and predict the relation between every word and its con-
text words. With this method, relevant information from the texts is captured, resulting in
good results.
In word2vec, SG (skip-gram) and CBOW (Continuous Bag-of-Words) algorithms are
used to produce word vectors [34]. The SG model is used to store semantic and syntactic
information about sentences. In this study, the SG model is implemented with a vector size
of 100, which means that each word will be represented by a vector of length 100, and a win-
dow size of 5, which shows the maximum distance between the current and predicted word
within a sentence. The choice of the value of the window parameter balances between cap-
turing local context and capturing broader semantic relationships, and the vector provides a
good balance between capturing semantic information and computational efficiency. The
aim of this model is to maximize the classification of words based on other words in the
same sentence.
The GLOVE (Global Vectors for Word Representation) method has been developed by
[35]. This method is used for producing word embeddings and is an unsupervised procedure.
A meaningful space is constructed for the words, in which the distance between words corre-
lates with semantic similarity. The global word cooccurrence matrix is aggregated from a cor-
pus for training purposes. As a result, the resulting representations of the word exhibit
interesting linear substructures in vector space. In this model, a large corpus of data has been
used to train it [36]. The model is not able to capture out-of-vocabulary words from the corpus
and consumes a great deal of memory during storage. It is effective and scalable for huge cor-
pora because it combines latent semantic analysis and CBOW. We perform experiments using
a vector embedding dimension of 300.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 10 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

3.4 Synthetic minority over-sampling technique

The distribution of positive, neutral, and negative polarities in the datasets in this study is
unbalanced. This imbalanced data may have a significant negative impact on the machine
learning models’ performance because it may tilt the decision surface in favor of the majority
class. The oversampling approach is used to solve the issue of class imbalance. This approach
works by increasing the size of the data, which creates more features for model training and
could be helpful to enhance the model’s accuracy. In this study, we use the synthetic minority
oversampling (SMOTE) method for oversampling. The SMOTE is a state-of-the-art method
proposed by [37, 38]. This method was selected because it avoids information loss, is simple to
interpret and implement, and helps to solve the overfitting issue for unbalanced datasets. Ran-
domly, SMOTE selects the smaller classes and finds their K-nearest neighbors. Based on the K-
nearest neighbor for each selected sample, a new minority class is constructed [39]. With 70:30
ratios, the data is divided into training and testing sets after the oversampling process.

3.5 Machine learning model

The proposed ensemble classifier was trained on the training set for classifying the sentiments
in the datasets and evaluated on the test data. The ML algorithm used in this work is a random
forest classifier. This model was chosen for this study because it helps to avoid overfitting, pro-
vides a measure of feature importance, and produces a reasonable prediction without adjusting
hyperparameters. This is a supervised ML algorithm that is used for regression and classifica-
tion purposes and belongs to the ensemble learning family [40]. In the random forest model,
decision trees are constructed from datasets and create a forest made of trees. A random forest
classifier consists of the following steps: The first step is to select random data samples from
the available dataset. For each selected data sample, a decision tree is constructed, and a predic-
tion value is extracted from each decision tree. For node splitting, the Gini coefficient method
is applied as follows:
Xn
GiniðDÞ ¼ 1 p2
i¼1 i
ð2Þ

Where D represents the dataset and Pi represents the probability of decision classes appear-
ing in D. After obtaining prediction values from each decision tree, a voting method is applied.
The final prediction result is selected based on the prediction value with the most votes [41].
In order to increase accuracy, RF was implemented with n-estimators equal to 100, which indi-
cates how many trees contributed to the prediction. To decrease the probability of the decision
tree overfitting, the ‘max_depth’ setting is set to 5, which shows that every decision tree can go
to a maximum of five levels.

3.6 Performance measures

To examine the performance of the suggested model using different feature extraction tech-
niques, we used several standard performance measures. Specifically, we used recall, accuracy,
precision, and F1-measure. To calculate all four metrics, machine learning models can be visu-
alized by using a confusion matrix [42, 43]. The elements of this matrix are False Negative
(FN), True Positive (TP), False Positive (FP), and True Negative (TN). The performance evalu-
ation of classifiers is made according to the following formulas:
TP þ TN
Accuracy : ð3Þ
TP þ TN þ FP þ FN

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 11 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

TP
Precision : ð4Þ
TP þ FP

TP
Recall : ð5Þ
TP þ FN

Precision∗Recall
F1 Measure : 2∗ ð6Þ
Precision þ Recall

4. Experimental results
We conducted the experiments on Google Colab, a cloud-based graphical processing unit
(GPU)-based platform offered by Google Inc. The classification algorithm was implemented
using the Scikit-learn library. Due to the moderate size of the dataset, ML algorithms are used
rather than deep learning algorithms for classification. We conducted experiments using a set
of datasets that are commonly used in sentiment analysis by applying a random forest classifier
using different word representation models and based on the parameters shown in Table 5.
It is observed that the sentiment classes in the datasets are imbalanced, so the SMOTE tech-
nique is applied. For the two datasets, a total of 70% is used for the training process, and the
other 30% is used for testing using the random forest model as shown in Table 6. The perfor-
mance of the random forest algorithm is evaluated on different metrics such as recall, preci-
sion, accuracy, and F1-measure.
Computational efficiency is calculated by using the training time which is the time it takes
to train the model, and the prediction time which is the time it takes to predict the labels for a
new set of instances after each feature extraction. A comparison of all the feature extraction
methods on the Twitter dataset is shown in Table 7, where the TF-IDF and HV methods
achieve the highest accuracy, but the TF-IDF is much faster than others. The n-gram has the
lowest accuracy, but it also has a low training time.
A comparison of all the feature extractions on the Amazon reviews dataset is shown in
Table 8. The TF-IDF achieves the highest precision, accuracy, recall, and F1-measure. It also
has the lowest training time.

Table 5. The parameters tuned with respect to the random forest model.
Parameters Values
n_estimators 100
Criterion Gini
max_depth 5
max_features sqrt
random_state 42
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t005

Table 6. The total size and size of (train/test) of the datasets.

Dataset Total size Training Set size Testing Set size
Twitter US airlines 14640 10248 4392
Amazon musical instrument reviews 10261 7183 3078
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t006

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 12 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Table 7. Performance and time of the random forest classifier on a Twitter dataset.
Feature extraction accuracy Precision Recall F1-measure Training time Prediction time
TF_IDF 96 95 96 95 11.285836 0.497233
N_Gram 86 87 86 86 13.926802 0.541020
BOW 87 87 87 87 16.031671 0.535141
Hashing Vectorizer 96 96 96 96 79.441338 0.809710
Word2Vec 93 93 93 93 19.753669 0.214723
Glove 92 92 92 92 35.825151 0.180461
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t007

Fig 5 displays a comparison of the training time for the proposed model following the data-
set’s feature extraction. The HV method requires significantly more training time compared to
other methods.
Fig 6 displays the testing time for the proposed model following the dataset’s feature extrac-
tion. The HV method takes a longer prediction time, followed by the n-gram and Bow meth-
ods. Fig 7 displays the proposed model’s accuracy. The highest accuracy values of the proposed
model on the datasets for TF-IDF and HV methods.

5. Discussion
In this section, we will have an overall discussion of the experimental results from the previous
section. It has been noted that all the feature extraction methods performed well, with high
accuracy and balanced precision, recall, and F1-measure, so the model’s performance is not
skewed by the majority class and the model can generalize well to all classes. This suggests that
the other methods are also capable of extracting important features from the text data.
From Fig 6, the comparison between the outcomes proves that the performance of the
model is the highest after the TF_IDF and HV methods for both datasets. The TF-IDF achieves
an accuracy of 99% with the Amazon dataset and 96% with the Twitter dataset. The perfor-
mance of the model is improved, especially on TF-IDF vectorization because the model can
benefit from the ability of this extractor to focus on important and discriminative terms while
down-weighting common and less informative terms.
BOW performs similarly to the n-gram method, with slightly lower accuracy and F1-mea-
sure in which the accuracy of BOW is 90% on the Amazon dataset and 87% on another dataset.
The BOW method shows consistent precision and recall across both datasets, indicating that it
maintains a good balance between correctly identifying sentiments. From Fig 4 the training
time was relatively fast in the TF-IDF but the training time of HV is the longest in both datasets
due to the hashing process and the potential for hash collisions. The Word2Vec and GloVe
models have slightly lower accuracy than TF-IDF, but Word2Vec is much faster to train than
the GloVe model, especially for the Amazon reviews dataset. From Fig 5 the prediction time of

Table 8. Performance and time of the random forest classifier on the Amazon dataset.
Feature extraction Accuracy Precision Recall F1-measure Training time Prediction time
TF_IDF 99 99 99 99 8.738268 0.199666
N-gram 89 93 92 92 10.649860 0.217366
BOW 90 91 90 90 10.967826 0.209918
Hashing Vectorizer 98 98 99 98 62.155688 1.326388
Word2Vec 96 96 96 96 8.990855 0.101492
Glove 97 97 97 97 48.304039 0.231222
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.t008

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 13 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Fig 5. The training time of the datasets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g005

the HV method is the longest on both datasets but the prediction time of TF-IDF is relatively
the same on both datasets.
Overall, the TF-IDF extractor provides a good balance between performance across all eval-
uation metrics and computational efficiency. Thus, it is important to consider the trade-off
between training time and the specific requirements of the sentiment analysis task when
choosing a feature extraction method because some techniques may yield higher accuracy, but
the training time becomes too long, and this may not be practical for real-time sentiment anal-
ysis applications.
Our experiment has shown that selecting the right feature extraction method has a signifi-
cant impact on the performance of an ML algorithm, which means that rather than spending a
lot of time optimizing a specific classifier, it might be worthwhile to spend more time choosing
the right feature extraction method. Also, the impact is on business organizations that may be
able to detect negative reviews more efficiently. In a short period of time, business organiza-
tions can learn about customer demand after inspecting negative reviews, and they can reshape
their products and policies accordingly.
Although we have shown successful feature extraction-based sentiment analysis and ML,
there are several limitations to this work that could be explored in the future: this study is
based on only English-language reviews that were analyzed and another limitation is that we
have only tested the random forest model in our experiments.

6. Conclusion
In the last few years, feature extraction and machine learning have become more popular for
analysis and prediction. The effectiveness of sentiment analysis on social media is studied in

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 14 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

Fig 6. The prediction time of the datasets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g006

Fig 7. The accuracy of the datasets.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968.g007

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 15 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

this research using six distinct feature extraction techniques, and the key findings are dis-
cussed. So, in this work, there are two different datasets from diversified social media plat-
forms to evaluate the performance of the suggested model. A data preprocessing stage is
executed on the dataset to remove several superfluous symbols and then employ feature extrac-
tion with the SMOTE technique. A state-of-the-art ML algorithm is used to train the extracted
features, namely the random forest algorithm. After each feature extraction, the ML algo-
rithm’s performance is evaluated.
On both datasets, the random forest offers the highest accuracy with TF-IDF and fewer
training and prediction times than others. The results indicate that the choice of suitable meth-
ods for feature extraction plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of sentiment
analysis tasks, with some techniques performing better than others. These findings have
important implications for practitioners and researchers working in the field of sentiment
analysis. They suggest that careful consideration should be given to the choice of feature
extraction techniques when developing sentiment analysis models for social media.
In future studies, the analysis can be expanded to include other languages, such as Arabic,
and can explore other machine learning models, such as deep learning models or transformers,
to see if they can improve the accuracy of sentiment analysis on imbalanced datasets with dif-
ferent feature extraction techniques. Additionally, we can use hybrid feature extraction tech-
niques to explore the impact of this improvement on the performance of the sentiment
analysis classification. Finally, we intend to apply our method to more recent datasets.

Supporting information
S1 File. The file contains the data and supporting tables.
(DOCX)

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Prince Sultan University for their valuable support.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Wesam Ahmed, Mohamed Hammad.
Data curation: Wesam Ahmed.
Funding acquisition: Paweł Pławiak.
Investigation: Noura A. Semary, Paweł Pławiak, Mohamed Hammad.
Methodology: Wesam Ahmed.
Project administration: Paweł Pławiak.
Software: Wesam Ahmed.
Supervision: Noura A. Semary, Khalid Amin, Mohamed Hammad.
Validation: Khalid Amin, Mohamed Hammad.
Visualization: Noura A. Semary.
Writing – original draft: Wesam Ahmed, Mohamed Hammad.
Writing – review & editing: Wesam Ahmed, Paweł Pławiak, Mohamed Hammad.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 16 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

References
1. Birjali M, Kasri M, Beni-Hssane A. A comprehensive survey on sentiment analysis: approaches, chal-
lenges and trends. Knowl-Based Syst 226:107134. (2021); 226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.
107134.
2. Omar A, Abd El-Hafeez T. Quantum computing and machine learning for Arabic language sentiment
classification in social media. Scientific Reports.2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44113-7
PMID: 37828056
3. Khairy M, Mahmoud TM, Omar A, Abd El-Hafeez T. Comparative performance of ensemble machine
learning for Arabic cyberbullying and offensive language detection. Language Resources and Evalua-
tion. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-023-09683-y.
4. Mamdouh F H, Abd El-Hafeez T. A new feature selection method based on frequent and associated
itemsets for text classification. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience. 2022. https://
doi.org/10.1002/cpe.7258.
5. Omar A, Mahmoud TM, Abd-El-Hafeez T, Mahfouz A. Multi-label arabic text classification in online
social networks. Information Systems. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2021.101785.
6. Khairy M, Mahmoud TM, Abd-El-Hafeez T. Automatic detection of cyberbullying and abusive language
in Arabic content on social networks: a survey. Procedia Computer Science. 2021 Jan 1; 189:156–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.05.080.
7. Farghaly HM, Ali AA, El-Hafeez TA. Developing an Efficient Method for Automatic Threshold Detection
Based on Hybrid Feature Selection Approach. InArtificial Intelligence and Bioinspired Computational
Methods: Proceedings of the 9th Computer Science On-line Conference Springer International Publish-
ing.2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51971-1_5.
8. Farghaly HM, Ali AA, Abd El-Hafeez T. Building an Effective and Accurate Associative Classifier Based
on Support Vector Machine. SYLWAN. 2020.
9. Mamdouh F H, Abd El-Hafeez T. A high-quality feature selection method based on frequent and corre-
lated items for text classification. Soft Computing. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08587-x.
10. Goodrum H, Roberts K, Bernstam EV. Automatic classification of scanned electronic health record doc-
uments. Int J Med Inform 144:104302, 144. 2020; 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104302
PMID: 33091829
11. Blanco A, Perez-de-Vinaspre O, Perez A, Casillas A. Boosting ICD multi-label classification of health
records with contextual embeddings and label-granularity. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2020;
188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.105264 PMID: 31851906
12. Alqaisi T, O’Keefe S. En-Ar bilingual word embeddings without word alignment: Factors Effects. In:
Proc Fourth Arab Nat Lang Process Work— Assoc Comput Linguist ANLPW-ACL-2019, 97–107. 2019.
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/w19-4611.
13. Li Y, Yang T. Word embedding for understanding natural language: a survey. Big Data Appl. 2018; 26.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53817-4_4.
14. Sun F, Guo J, Lan Y, Xu J, & Cheng X. Learning word representations by jointly modeling syntagmatic
and paradigmatic relations. n Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa-
tional Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing.2015; 1:
136–145.
15. Lai S, Liu K, Xu L, & Zhao J. How to generate a good word embedding?. IEEE Intelligent Systems.
2016; 31: 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2016.45.
16. Ahmed J, Ahmed M. Classification, detection, and sentiment analysis using machine learning over
next-generation communication platforms. Microprocessors and Microsystems. 2023;98. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.micpro.2023.104795.
17. Gaur P, Vashistha S, Jha P. Twitter Sentiment Analysis Using Naive Bayes-Based Machine Learning
Technique. In: Shakya S., Du KL., Ntalianis K. (eds) Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning. Advances
in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer, Singapore. 2023;1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-19-5443-6_27.
18. Qi Y, Shabrina Z. Qi Y, Shabrina Z. Sentiment analysis using Twitter data: a comparative application of
lexicon-and machine-learning-based approach. Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2023;13. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01030-x.
19. Al sari B., Alkhaldi R., Alsaffar D. et al. Sentiment analysis for cruises in Saudi Arabia on social media
platforms using machine learning algorithms. Journal of Big Data.2022; 9,1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40537-022-00568-5 PMID: 35223367
20. Mukherjee P, Badr Y, Doppalapudi S, Srinivasan SM, Sangwan RS, Sharma R. Effect of negation in
sentences on sentiment analysis and polarity detection. Procedia Computer Science. 2021;
1:185:370–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.05.038.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 17 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

21. Noori B. Classification of Customer Reviews Using Machine Learning Algorithms. Applied Artificial Intel-
ligence.2021:567–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.1922843.
22. Zahoor S, and Rohilla R. Twitter Sentiment Analysis Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Case
Study. 2020 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communication & Materials.
2020:194–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCM50413.2020.9213011.
23. Samuel J, Ali GM, Rahman MM, Esawi E, Samuel Y. Covid-19 public sentiment insights and machine
learning for tweets classification. Information.2020;11 https://doi.org/10.3390/info11060314.
24. Kumar S, Gahalawat M, Roy PP, Dogra DP, Kim BG. Exploring Impact of Age and Gender on Senti-
ment Analysis Using Machine Learning. Electronics.2020;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/
electronics9020374.
25. Zarisfi K F, Sadeghi F, Eslami E. Solving the twitter sentiment analysis problem based on a machine
learning-based approach. Evolutionary Intelligence. 2020; 13:381–98. ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-
019-00301-x.
26. Tan KL, Lee CP, Anbananthen K SM, Lim K M. RoBERTa-LSTM: a hybrid model for sentiment analysis
with transformer and recurrent neural network. IEEE Access, 2022; 10: 21517–21525. https://doi.org/
10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152828.
27. Campos P, Pinto E, Torres A. Rating and perceived helpfulness in a bipartite network of online product
reviews. Electronic Commerce Research. 2023;1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-023-09725-1.
28. Chopra M, Singh SK, Aggarwal K, Gupta A. Predicting catastrophic events using machine learning
models for natural language processing. In: Data mining approaches for big data and sentiment analysis
in social media. IGI Global. 2022:223–243. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8413-2.ch010.
29. Chong WY, Selvaretnam B, Soon LK. Natural language processing for sentiment analysis: an explor-
atory analysis on tweets. In: 2014 4th international conference on artificial intelligence with applications
in engineering and technology. IEEE. 2014:212–217. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAIET.2014.43.
30. Bordoloi M, Biswas SK. Sentiment analysis: A survey on design framework, applications and future
scopes. Artificial Intelligence Review. 2023; 20:1–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10442-2
PMID: 37362892
31. Liaqat MI, Hassan MA, Shoaib M, Khurshid SK, Shamseldin MA. Sentiment analysis techniques, chal-
lenges, and opportunities: Urdu language-based analytical study. PeerJ Computer Science. 2022;8.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.1032 PMID: 36091980
32. Gohil S, Vuik S, Darzi A. Sentiment analysis of health care tweets: review of the methods used. JMIR
Public Health Surveill. 2018; 4. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.5789 PMID: 29685871
33. Barbounaki SG, Gourounti K, Sarantaki A. Advances of Sentiment Analysis Applications in Obstetrics/
Gynecology and Midwifery. Mater Sociomed.2021:225–230. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2021.33.
225-230 PMID: 34759782
34. Chen Q, Sokolova M. Specialists, scientists, and sentiments: Word2Vec and Doc2Vec in analysis of sci-
entific and medical texts. SN Computer Science. 2021; 2:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-
00807-1 PMID: 34414378
35. Mikolov T, Yih WT, Zweig G. Linguistic regularities in continuous space word representations. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2013 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational lin-
guistics: Human language technologies. 2013: 746–751.
36. Pennington J., Socher R. and Manning C.D., (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In
Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP).
1532–1543.
37. Sunitha D, Patra RK, Babu NV, Suresh A, Gupta SC. Twitter sentiment analysis using ensemble based
deep learning model towards COVID-19 in India and European countries. Pattern Recognition Letters.
2022; 158:164–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2022.04.027 PMID: 35464347
38. Maciejewski T, Stefanowski J. Local neighbourhood extension of SMOTE for mining imbalanced data.
In2011 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence and data mining (CIDM) 2011 Apr 11 (pp. 104–
111). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIDM.2011.5949434.
39. Bunkhumpornpat C, Sinapiromsaran K, Lursinsap C. Safe-Level-Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling
Technique for Handling the Class Imbalanced Problem. In Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Dis-
covery and Data Mining, Springer.2009:475–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01307-2_43.
40. Chawla NV, Bowyer KW, Hall LO, Kegelmeyer WP. SMOTE: synthetic minority over-sampling tech-
nique. Journal of artificial intelligence research. 2002; 16:321–57. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953.
41. Reddy Maddikunta PK, Srivastava G, Reddy Gadekallu T, Deepa N, Boopathy P. Predictive model for
battery life in IoT networks. IET Intelligent Transport Systems. 2020; 14:1388–95. https://doi.org/10.
1049/iet-its.2020.0009

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 18 / 19

PLOS ONE Improved sentiment analysis with feature extraction in ML

42. Yan X, Jin Y, Xu Y, Li R. Wind turbine generator fault detection based on multi-layer neural network and
random forest algorithm. In 2019 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT Asia). 2019:
4132–4136. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2019.8881778.
43. Al Amrani Y, Lazaar M, El Kadiri KE. Random forest and support vector machine based hybrid approach
to sentiment analysis. Procedia Computer Science. 2018; 127:511–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.
2018.01.150.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294968 February 14, 2024 19 / 19