Advertisement

Ontology-Driven Sentiment Analysis of Product and Service Aspects

  • Kim Schouten
  • Flavius Frasincar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10843)

Abstract

With so much opinionated, but unstructured, data available on the Web, sentiment analysis has become popular with both companies and researchers. Aspect-based sentiment analysis goes one step further by relating the expressed sentiment in a text to the topic, or aspect, the sentiment is expressed on. This enables a detailed analysis of the sentiment expressed in, for example, reviews of products or services. In this paper we propose a knowledge-driven approach to aspect sentiment analysis that complements traditional machine learning methods. By utilizing common domain knowledge, as encoded in an ontology, we improve the sentiment analysis of a given aspect. The domain knowledge is used to determine which words are expressing sentiment on the given aspect as well as to disambiguate sentiment carrying words or phrases. The proposed method has a highly competitive performance of over 80% accuracy on both SemEval-2015 and SemEval-2016 data, significantly outperforming the considered baselines.

References

  1. 1.
    Cambria, E., Hussain, A.: Sentic Computing: A Common-Sense-Based Framework for Concept-Level Sentiment Analysis. SC, vol. 1. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23654-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cambria, E., Olsher, D., Rajagopal, D.: SenticNet 3: a common and common-sense knowledge base for cognition-driven sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2014), pp. 1515–1521. AAAI (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cambria, E.: Affective computing and sentiment analysis. IEEE Intell. Syst. 31(2), 102–107 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dragoni, M., Tettamanzi, A.G.B., da Costa Pereira, C.: A fuzzy system for concept-level sentiment analysis. In: Presutti, V., et al. (eds.) SemWebEval 2014. CCIS, vol. 475, pp. 21–27. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12024-9_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frank, E., Hall, M.A., Witten, I.H.: The WEKA Workbench. Online Appendix for “Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques”, 4th edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.: Evaluating ontological decisions with OntoClean. Commun. ACM 45(2), 61–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hogenboom, A., van Iterson, P., Heerschop, B., Frasincar, F., Kaymak, U.: Determining negation scope and strength in sentiment analysis. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC 2011), pp. 2589–2594. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lau, R.Y., Li, C., Liao, S.S.: Social analytics: learning fuzzy product ontologies for aspect-oriented sentiment analysis. Decis. Support Syst. 65(C), 80–94 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manning, C.D., Surdeanu, M., Bauer, J., Finkel, J., Bethard, S.J., McClosky, D.: The Stanford CoreNLP natural language processing toolkit. In: Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the ACL: System Demonstrations, pp. 55–60. ACL (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mullen, T., Collier, N.: Sentiment analysis using support vector machines with diverse information sources. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2004), vol. 4, pp. 412–418. ACL (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pontiki, M., Galanis, D., Papageorgiou, H., Androutsopoulos, I., Manandhar, S., Al-Smadi, M., Al-Ayyoub, M., Zhao, Y., Qin, B., Clercq, O.D., Hoste, V., Apidianaki, M., Tannier, X., Loukachevitch, N., Kotelnikov, E., Bel, N., Jiménez-Zafra, S.M., Eryiğit, G.: SemEval-2016 task 5: aspect based sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2016). ACL (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pontiki, M., Galanis, D., Papageorgiou, H., Manandhar, S., Androutsopoulos, I.: SemEval-2015 task 12: aspect based sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval 2015), pp. 486–495. ACL (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schouten, K., Frasincar, F.: Survey on aspect-level sentiment analysis. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 28(3), 813–830 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schouten, K., Frasincar, F., de Jong, F.: Ontology-enhanced aspect-based sentiment analysis. In: Cabot, J., De Virgilio, R., Torlone, R. (eds.) ICWE 2017. LNCS, vol. 10360, pp. 302–320. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60131-1_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J.Y., Chuang, J., Manning, C.D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C.P.: Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2013), pp. 1631–1642. ACL (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xia, Y., Cambria, E., Hussain, A., Zhao, H.: Word polarity disambiguation using Bayesian model and opinion-level features. Cogn. Comput. 7(3), 369–380 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations