Advertisement

Frontiers of Computer Science

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 404–416 | Cite as

A unified latent variable model for contrastive opinion mining

  • Ebuka Ibeke
  • Chenghua LinEmail author
  • Adam Wyner
  • Mohamad Hardyman Barawi
Research Article
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

There are large and growing textual corpora in which people express contrastive opinions about the same topic. This has led to an increasing number of studies about contrastive opinion mining. However, there are several notable issues with the existing studies. They mostly focus on mining contrastive opinions from multiple data collections, which need to be separated into their respective collections beforehand. In addition, existing models are opaque in terms of the relationship between topics that are extracted and the sentences in the corpus which express the topics; this opacity does not help us understand the opinions expressed in the corpus. Finally, contrastive opinion is mostly analysed qualitatively rather than quantitatively. This paper addresses these matters and proposes a novel unified latent variable model (contraLDA), which: mines contrastive opinions from both single and multiple data collections, extracts the sentences that project the contrastive opinion, and measures the strength of opinion contrastiveness towards the extracted topics. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our model in mining contrasted opinions, which outperformed our baselines in extracting coherent and informative sentiment-bearing topics. We further show the accuracy of our model in classifying topics and sentiments of textual data, and we compared our results to five strong baselines.

Keywords

contrastive opinion mining sentiment analysis topic modelling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the award made by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P005810/1).

Supplementary material

11704_2018_7073_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (263 kb)
A unified latent variable model for contrastive opinion mining

References

  1. 1.
    Fang Y, Si L, Somasundaram N, Yu Z. Mining contrastive opinions on political texts using cross-perspective topic model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 2012, 63–72Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trabelsi A, Zaïane O R. A joint topic viewpoint model for contention analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Data Bases/Information Systems. 2014, 114–125Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lerman K, McDonald R. Contrastive summarization: an experiment with consumer reviews. In: Proceedings of the HLT Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2009, 113–116Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paul M, Girju R. Cross-cultural analysis of blogs and forums with mixed-collection topic models. In: Proceedings of the ACL Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2009, 1408–1417Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elahi M F, Monachesi P. An examination of cross-cultural similarities and differences from social media data with respect to language use. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. 2012, 4080–4086Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibeke E, Lin C, Wyner A, Barawi M H. Extracting and understanding contrastive opinion through topic relevant sentences. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. 2017, 395–400Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barawi M H, Lin C, Siddharthan A. Automatically labelling sentiment-bearing topics with descriptive sentence labels. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Natural Language and Information Systems. 2017, 299–312Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhai C, Velivelli A, Yu B. A cross-collection mixture model for comparative text mining. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2004, 743–748Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed A, Xing E P. Staying informed: supervised and semi-supervised multi-view topical analysis of ideological perspective. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2010, 1140–1150Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mukherjee A, Liu B. Mining contentions from discussions and debates. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2012, 841–849Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thonet T, Cabanac G, Boughanem M, Pinel-Sauvagnat K. VODUM: a topic model unifying viewpoint, topic and opinion discovery. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Retrieval. 2016, 533–545Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paul M J, Zhai C, Girju R. Summarizing contrastive viewpoints in opinionated text. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2010, 66–76Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paul M J, Girju R. A two-dimensional topic-aspect model for discovering multi-faceted topics. Urbana, 2010, 51(61801): 36Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo J, Lu Y, Mori T, Blake C. Expert-guided contrastive opinion summarization for controversial issues. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion. 2015, 1105–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ren Z, de Rijke M. Summarizing contrastive themes via hierarchical non-parametric processes. In: Proceedings of the 38th SIGIR International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2015, 93–102Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    He L, Li W, Zhuge H. Exploring differential topic models for comparative summarization of scientific papers. In: Proceedings of COLING International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 2016, 1028–1038Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakasaki H, Kawaba M, Utsuro T, Fukuhara T. Mining cross-lingual/cross-cultural differences in concerns and opinions in blogs. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conferee on Computer Processing of Oriental Languages. Language Technology for the Knowledge-based Economy. 2009, 213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo H, Zhu H, Guo Z, Zhang X, Su Z. Opinionlt: a text mining system for cross-lingual opinion analysis. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2010, 1199–1208Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gutiérrez E D, Shutova E, Lichtenstein P, de Melo G, Gilardi L. Detecting cross-cultural differences using a multil, 2016, 4: 47–60Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin C, He Y. Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2009, 375–384Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin C, He Y, Everson R, Ruger S. Weakly supervised joint sentiment-topic detection from text. Journal of IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2012, 24(6): 1134–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wallach H, Mimno D, McCallum A. Rethinking LDA: why priors matter. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2009, 22: 1973–1981Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Minka T. Estimating a dirichlet distribution. Technical Report, 2003Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibeke E, Lin C, Coe C, Wyner A, Liu D, Barawi M H, Yusof N F A. A curated corpus for sentiment-topic analysis. In: Proceedings of the LREC 2016 Workshop on Emotion and Sentiment Analysis. 2016, 32–39Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang J, Gerrish S, Wang C, Boyd-Graber J L, Jordan L, Blei D M. Reading tea leaves: how humans interpret topic models. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 2009, 288–296Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mimno D, Wallach H M, Talley E, Leenders M, McCallum A. Optimizing semantic coherence in topic models. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2011, 262–272Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bouma G. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. In: Proceedings of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology. 2009, 31–40Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Newman D, Lau J H, Grieser K, Baldwin T. Automatic evaluation of topic coherence. In: Proceedings of the HLT Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2010, 100–108Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aletras N, Stevenson M. Evaluating topic coherence using distributional semantics. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computational Semantics. 2013, 13–22Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Steyvers M, Griffiths T. Probabilistic topic models. Handbook of Latent Semantic Analysis, 2007, 427(7): 424–440Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cano A B, He Y, Xu R. Automatic labelling of topic models learned from Twitter by summarisation. In: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of Association for Computational Linguists. 2014, 618–624Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramage D, Hall D, Nallapati R, Manning C D. Labeled LDA: a supervised topic model for credit attribution in multi-labeled corpora. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2009, 248–256Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mcauliffe J D, Blei D M. Supervised topic models. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2008, 121–128Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim Y. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2014, 1746–1751Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ganu G, Marian A, Elhadad N. URSA-user review structure analysis: understanding online reviewing trends. DCS Technical Report: Cite-seer, 2010Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ebuka Ibeke
    • 1
  • Chenghua Lin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adam Wyner
    • 1
  • Mohamad Hardyman Barawi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations