Opinion Polarity Identification of Movie Reviews

  • Franco Salvetti
  • Christoph Reichenbach
  • Stephen Lewis
Part of the The Information Retrieval Series book series (INRE, volume 20)


One approach to the assessment of overall opinion polarity (OvOP) of reviews, a concept defined in this paper, is the use of supervised machine learning mechanisms. In this paper, the impact of lexical feature selection and feature generalization, applied to reviews, on the precision of two probabilistic classifiers (Naïve Bayes and Markov Model) with respect to OvOP identification is observed. Feature generalization based on hypernymy as provided by WordNet, and feature selection based on part-ofspeech (POS) tags are evaluated. A ranking criterion is introduced, based on a function of the probability of having positive or negative polarity, which makes it possible to achieve 100% precision with 10% recall. Movie reviews are used for training and testing the probabilistic classifiers, which achieve 80% precision.


opinion polarity sentiment identification synonymy feature generalization hypernymy feature generalization POS feature selection probabilistic classification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

12. Bibliography

  1. Brill, E. (1995) Transformation-Based Error-Driven Learning and Natural Language Processing: A Case Study in Part-of-Speech Tagging. Computational Linguistics, 21(4):543–565.Google Scholar
  2. Duda, R. O. and Hart, P. E. (1973) Pattern Classification and Scene Anaylsis. A Wiley Interscience Publication, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Fellbaum, C. (1998) Wordnet: An Electronic Lexical Database. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hatzivassiloglou, V. and McKeown, K. R. (1997) Predicting the Semantic Orientation of Adjectives. In Cohen, P. R. and Wahlster. W. (Ed.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and Eighth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 174–181. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  5. Hatzivassiloglou, V., and Wiebe, J. (2000) Effects of Adjective Orientation and Gradability on Sentence Subjectivity. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference in Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
  6. Jurafsky, D. and Martin, J. H. (2000) Speech and Language Processing. Prenctice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Leeper, M. R. (1995) Review of Apollo 13, Usenet Scholar
  8. Losee, R. M. (2001) Natural Language Processing in Support of Decision-making: Phrases and Part-of-Speech Tagging. Information Processing and Management, 37(6):769–787.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B. and Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1994) Building a Large Annotated Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19(2):313–330.Google Scholar
  10. Pang, B., Lee, L. and Vaithyanathan, S. (2002) Thumbs up? Sentiment Classification using Machine Learning Techniques. Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP).Google Scholar
  11. Shanahan, J. G., Roma, N. (2003) Improving SVM Text Classification Performance through Threshold Adjustment. European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML) 2003, 361–372.Google Scholar
  12. Turney, P. (2002) Thumbs up or Thumbs down? Semantic Orientation applied to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL02), 417–424.Google Scholar
  13. Turney, P. and Littman, M. (2003) Measuring Praise and Criticism: Inference of Semantic Orientation from Association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 21(4):315–346.Google Scholar
  14. Wiebe, J., Bruce, R. F. and O’Hara, T. (1999) Development and Use of a Gold-Standard Data Set for Subjectivity Classifications. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL99), 223–287.Google Scholar
  15. Wiebe, J. (2000) Learning Subjective Adjectives from Corpora. Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 12th Conference on Innovative Application of Artificial Intelligence, 735–740. AAAI Press / The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Zhai, C., Jansen, P., Stoica, E., Grot, N., Evans, D.A. (1999) Threshold Calibration in CLARIT Adaptive Filtering. Seventh Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-7), 149–156.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franco Salvetti
    • 1
  • Christoph Reichenbach
    • 1
  • Stephen Lewis
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Dept. of LinguisticsUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations