Enhance User-Level Sentiment Analysis on Microblogs with Approval Relations

  • Federico Alberto Pozzi
  • Daniele Maccagnola
  • Elisabetta Fersini
  • Enza Messina
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8249)


Sentiment Analysis for polarity classification on microblogs is generally based on the assumption that texts are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d). Although these methods are aimed at handling the complex characteristics of natural language, usually they do not consider microblogs as networked data. Early approaches for overcoming this limitation consist in exploiting friendship relationships, since connected users may be more likely to hold similar opinions (Homophily and Social Influence). However, the assumption about the friendship relations does not reflect the real world, where two connected users could have different opinions about the same topic. In order to overcome these shortcomings, we propose a semi-supervised framework that estimates user polarities about a given topic by combining post contents and weighted approval relations, which are intended to better represent the contagion on social networks. The experimental investigation reveals that incorporating approval relations can lead to statistically significant improvements over the performance of complex supervised classifiers based only on textual features.


Sentiment Analysis Conditional Random Field Bayesian Model Average Bayesian Model Average Black Node 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pang, B., Lee, L.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2, 1–135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pozzi, F.A., Fersini, E., Messina, E.: Bayesian model averaging and model selection for polarity classification. In: Métais, E., Meziane, F., Saraee, M., Sugumaran, V., Vadera, S. (eds.) NLDB 2013. LNCS, vol. 7934, pp. 189–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, S., Manning, C.D.: Baselines and bigrams: simple, good sentiment and topic classification. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers, ACL 2012, vol. 2, pp. 90–94 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maas, A.L., Daly, R.E., Pham, P.T., Huang, D., Ng, A.Y., Potts, C.: Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, HLT 2011, vol. 1, pp. 142–150 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Go, A., Bhayani, R., Huang, L.: Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. Technical report, Stanford (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbosa, L., Feng, J.: Robust sentiment detection on twitter from biased and noisy data. In: Proc. of ACL (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lazarsfeld, P.F., Merton, R.K.: Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger, M., Abel, T., Page, C.H. (eds.) Freedom and Control in Modern Society, pp. 8–66. Van Nostrand, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Speriosu, M., Sudan, N., Upadhyay, S., Baldridge, J.: Twitter polarity classification with label propagation over lexical links and the follower graph. In: Proc. of the First Workshop on Unsupervised Learning in NLP (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan, C., Lee, L., Tang, J., Jiang, L., Zhou, M., Li, P.: User-level sentiment analysis incorporating social networks. In: Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2011, pp. 1397–1405 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hu, X., Tang, L., Tang, J., Liu, H.: Exploiting social relations for sentiment analysis in microblogging. In: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2013, pp. 537–546. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wick, M., Rohanimanesh, K., Culotta, A., McCallum, A.: Samplerank: Learning preferences from atomic gradients. In: NIPS Workshop on Advances in Ranking (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble learning. In: The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, pp. 405–508. Mit Pr. (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoeting, J.A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A.E., Volinsky, C.T.: Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science 14(4), 382–417 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fersini, E., Messina, E., Archetti, F.: A probabilistic relational approach for web document clustering. Information Processing and Management 46(2), 117–130 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sharara, H., Getoor, L., Norton, M.: Active surveying: A probabilistic approach for identifying key opinion leaders. In: IJCAI, pp. 1485–1490 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fersini, E., Messina, E.: Web page classification through probabilistic relational models. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Alberto Pozzi
    • 1
  • Daniele Maccagnola
    • 1
  • Elisabetta Fersini
    • 1
  • Enza Messina
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations