Identifying Subjective Language - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

Identifying Subjective Language

Description:

462 newsgroup messages (2J) 15413 words (1J) Single round; results promising ... poignant crazy funny comic compelling. odd. 31. Bizarre. strange similar ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:135
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 58
Provided by: janycem9
Learn more at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Identifying Subjective Language


1
Identifying Subjective Language
  • Janyce Wiebe
  • University of Pittsburgh


2
Overview
  • General area acquire knowledge of evaluative
    and speculative language and use it in NLP
    applications
  • Primarily corpus-based work
  • Today results of exploratory studies

3
Collaborators
  • Rebecca Bruce, Vasileios Hatzivassiloglou, Joseph
    Phillips
  • Matthew Bell, Melanie Martin,Theresa Wilson

4
Subjectivity Tagging
  • Recognizing opinions and evaluations
  • (Subjective sentences) as opposed to
  • material objectively presented as true
  • (Objective sentences)

Banfield 1985, Fludernik 1993, Wiebe 1994, Stein
Wright 1995
5
Examples
  • At several different levels, its a
    fascinating tale. subjective
  • Bell Industries Inc. increased its quarterly
    to 10 cents from 7 cents a share. objective

6
Subjectivity
?
Enthused Wonderful! Great product
Complained You Idiot! Terrible product
Speculated Maybe
7
Examples
  • Strong addressee-oriented negative evaluation
  • Recognizing flames (Spertus 1997)
  • Personal e-mail filters (Kaufer 2000)

I had in mind your facts, buddy, not hers. Nice
touch. Alleges whenever facts posted are not
in your persona of what is real.
8
Examples
  • Opinionated, editorial language
  • IR, text categorization (Kessler et al. 1997)
  • Do the writers purport to be objective?

Look, this is a man who has great numbers. We
stand in awe of the Woodstock generations ability
to be unceasingly fascinated by the subject of
itself.
9
Examples
  • Belief and speech reports
  • Information extraction, summarization,
    intellectual attribution (Teufel Moens 2000)

Northwest Airlines settled the remaining
lawsuits, a federal judge said.
The cost of health care is eroding our standard
of living and sapping industrial strength,
complains Walter Maher.
10
Other Applications
  • Review mining (Terveen et al. 1997)
  • Clustering documents by ideology (Sack 1995)
  • Style in machine translation and generation (Hovy
    1987)

11
Potential Subjective Elements
Sap potential subjective element
"The cost of health care is eroding standards
of living and sapping industrial strength,
complains Walter Maher.
Subjective element
12
Subjectivity
  • Multiple types, sources, and targets

Somehow grown-ups believed that wisdom adhered
to youth.
We stand in awe of the Woodstock generations
ability to be unceasingly fascinated by the
subject of itself.
13
Outline
  • Data and annotation
  • Sentence-level classification
  • Individual words
  • Collocations
  • Combinations

14
Annotations
Manually tagged existing annotations
Three levels expression level
sentence level document level
15
Expression Level Annotations
Perhaps youll forgive me for
reposting his response They promised e 2 yet
more for e 3 really good e? 1 stuff
16
Expression Level Annotations

Probably the most natural level
Difficult for manual and automatic tagging
detailed no predetermined classification unit
To date used for training and bootstrapping
17
Document Level Annotations
Manual flames in Newsgroups Existing
opinion pieces in the WSJ editorials, letters
to the editor, arts leisure reviews
to reviews More directly
related to applications, but
18
Document Level Annotations
Opinion pieces contain objective sentences and
Non-opinion pieces contain subjective sentences
News reports present reactions (van Dijk 1988)
Critics claim Supporters argue
Editorials contain facts supporting the argument
Reviews contain information about the product
19
Document Level Annotations
In a WSJ data set
opinion pieces subj
74 obj 26
non-opinion pieces subj
43 obj 57

20
Data in this Talk
Sentence level 1000 WSJ sentences 3 judges
reached good agreement after rounds Used for
training and evaluation
Expression level 1000 WSJ sentences (2J)
462 newsgroup messages (2J) 15413 words (1J)
Single round results promising Used to
generate features, and not for evaluation
21
Data in this Talk
Document level Existing opinion-piece
annotations used to generate features
Manually refined classifications used for
evaluation Identified editorials not marked
as such Only clear instances labeled To
date 1 judge
Distinct from the other data 3 editions, each
more than 150K words
22
Sentence Level Annotations
A sentence is labeled subjective if any
significant expression of subjectivity appears
The cost of health care is eroding our standard
of living and sapping industrial strength,
complains Walter Maher. What an idiot,
the idiot presumably complained.
23
Sentence Classification
Probabilistic classifier
Binary Features pronoun, adjective,
number, modal will , adverb not,
new paragraph Lexical feature good for subj
good for obj good for neither
10-fold cross validation 51 baseline 72
average accuracy across folds 82 average
accuracy on sentences rated certain
24
Identifying PSEs
There are few high precision, high
frequency potential subjective elements
25
Identifying Individual PSEs
  • Classifications correlated with adjectives
  • Good subsets
  • Dynamic adjectives (Quirk et al. 1985)
  • Positive, negative polarity gradability
  • automatically identified in corpora
  • (Hatzivassiloglou McKeown 1997)

Results from distributional similarity
26
Distributional Similarity
Word similarity based on distributional pattern
of words
Much work in NLP (see Lee 99, Lee and Pereira 99)
  • Purposes
  • Improve estimates of unseen events
  • Thesaurus and dictionary construction from
    corpora

27
Lins Distributional Similarity
Word R W I R1
have have R2 dog brown R3 dog
. . .
Lin 1998
28
Lins Distributional Similarity
Sum over RWint I(Word1,RWint) I(Word2,RWint)
/ Sum over RWw1 I(Word1,RWw1) Sum over RWw2
I(Word2,RWw2)
29
Bizarre
strange similar scary unusual
fascinating interesting curious tragic
different contradictory peculiar silly sad
absurd poignant crazy funny comic
compelling odd
30
Bizarre
strange similar scary unusual
fascinating interesting curious tragic
different contradictory peculiar silly sad
absurd poignant crazy funny comic
compelling odd
31
Bizarre
strange similar scary unusual
fascinating interesting curious tragic
different contradictory peculiar silly sad
absurd poignant crazy funny comic
compelling odd
32
Filtering
Filtered Set
Seed Words
Word cluster removed if precision on training
set Words Clusters
33
Parameters
Threshold
Seed Words
Words Clusters
Cluster size
34
Seeds from Annotations
  • 1000 WSJ sentences with sentence level and
    expression level annotations
  • They promised e 2 yet more for
  • e 3 really good e? 1 stuff.
  • "It's e? 3 really e- 3 bizarre," says Albert
    Lerman, creative director at the Wells agency.

35
Experiments
1/10 used for training, 9/10 for testing
Parameters Cluster-size fixed at 20
Filtering threshold precision of baseline
adjective feature on the training data
7.5 ave 10-fold cross validation
More improvements with other adj features
36
Opinion Pieces
  • 3 WSJ data sets, over 150K words each

For measuring precision Prec(S)
instances of S in opinions /
total instances of S
Baseline for comparison words in opinions
/ total words
Skewed distribution 13-17 words in opinions
37
Parameters
Threshold
1-70
Seed Words
Words Clusters
2-40
Cluster size
38
Results
Varies with parameter settings, but there are
smooth regions of the space
Here training/validation/testing
39
Low Frequency Words
Single instance in a corpus low
frequency Analysis of expression level
annotations there are many more
single-instance words in subjective
elements than outside them
40
Unique Words
Replace all words that appear once in the test
data with UNIQUE
5-10 points
41
Collocations
here we go again get out of here what
a well and good rocket science for
the last time just as well ! Start
with the observation that low precision
words often compose higher precision collocations
42
Collocations
Identify n-gram PSEs as sequences whose
precision is higher than the maximum precision of
its constituents
W1,W2 is a PSE if prec(W1,W2) max
(prec(W1),prec(W2))
W1,W2,W3 is a PSE if prec(W1,W2,W3)
max(prec(W1,W2),prec(W3)) or prec(W1,W2,W3)
max(prec(W1),prec(W2,W3))
43
Collocations
Moderate improvements 3-10 points
But with all unique words mapped to
UNIQUE 13-24 points
44
Example Collocations with Unique
highlyadverb UNIQUEadj highly
unsatisfactory highly unorthodox
highly talented highly conjectural
highly erotic
45
Example Collocations with Unique
UNIQUEverb outIN farm out
chuck out ruling out crowd out
flesh out blot out
spoken out luck out
46
Collocations
UNIQUEadj toTO UNIQUEverb
impervious to reason strange to
celebrate wise to temper
theypronoun areverb UNIQUEnoun they
are fools they are noncontenders
UNIQUEnoun ofIN itspronoun sum of
its usurpation of its proprietor
of its
47
Opinion Results Summary
Best
Worst baseline 17
baseline 13
prec/freq
prec/freq Adjs 21/373
09/2137 Verbs 16/721
07/3193 2-grams 10/569
04/525 3-grams 07/156
03/148 1-U-grams 10/6065
06/6045 2-U-grams 24/294
14/288 3-U-grams 27/138
13/144
Disparate features have consistent performance N
Collocation sets largely distinct
48
Does it add up?
Good preliminary results classifying opinion
pieces using density and feature count features.
49
Future Work
  • Mutual bootstrapping (Riloff Jones 1999)
  • Co-training (Collins Singer 1999) to learn both
    PSEs and contextual features
  • Integration into a probabilistic model
  • Text classification and review mining

50
References
  • Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable Sentences.
    Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Collins, M. Singer, Y. (1999). Unsupervised
    models for named entity classification.
    EMNLP-VLC-99.
  • van Dijk, T.A. (1988). News as Discourse.
    Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Fludernik, M. (1983). The Fictions of Language
    and the Languages of Fiction. Routledge.
  • Hovy, E. (1987). Generating Natural Language
    Under Pragmatic Constraints. PhD dissertation.
  • Kaufer, D. (2000). Flaming. www.eudora.com
  • Kessler, B., Nunberg, G., Schutze H. (1997).
    Automatic Detection of Genre. ACL-EACL-97.
  • Riloff, E. Jones R. (1999). Learning
    Dictionaries for Information Extraction by
    Multi-level Boot-strapping. AAAI-99

51
References
  • Stein, D. Wright, S. (1995). Subjectivity and
    Subjectivisation. Cambridge.
  • Terveen, W., Hill, W., Amento, B. ,McDonald D.
    Creter, J. (1997). Building Task-Specific
    Interfaces to High Volume Conversational Data.
    CHI-97.
  • Teufel S., Moens M. (2000). Whats Yours and
    Whats Mine Determining Intellectual
    Attribution in Scientific Texts. EMNLP-VLC-00.
  • Wiebe, J. (2000). Learning Subjective Adjectives
    from Corpora. AAAI-00.
  • Wiebe, J. (1994). Tracking Point of View in
    Narrative. Computational Linguistics (20) 2.
  • Wiebe, J. , Bruce, R., OHara T. (1999).
    Development and Use of a Gold Standard Data Set
    for Subjectivity Classifications. ACL-99.

52
References
  • Hatzivassiloglou V. McKeown K. (1997).
    Predicting the Semantic Orientation of
    Adjectives. ACL-EACL-97.
  • Hatzovassiloglou V. Wiebe J. (2000). Effects of
    Adjective Orientation and Gradability on Sentence
    Subjectivity. COLING-00.
  • Lee, L. (1999). Measures of Distributional
    Similarity. ACL-99.
  • Lee, L. Pereira F. (1999). ACL-99.
  • Lin, D. (1998). Automatic Retrieval and
    Clustering of Similar Words. COLING-ACL-98.
  • Quirk, R, Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik,
    J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the
    English Language. Longman.
  • Sack, W. (1995). Representing and Recognizing
    Point of View. AAAI Fall Symposium on Knowledge
    Navigation and Retrieval.

53
Sentence Annotations
  • Ave pair-wise Kappa scores
  • all data .69
  • certain data .88 (60 of the corpus)
  • Case study of analyzing and improving intercoder
  • reliability
  • if there is symmetric disagreement resulting
    from bias
  • assessed by fitting probability models (Bishop et
    al. 1975, CoCo)
  • bias marginal homogeneity
  • symmetric disagreement quasi-symmetry
  • use the latent class model to correct
    disagreements

54
Test for Bias Marginal Homogeneity
1 X1
2 X2
3 X3
4 X4
Worse the fit, greater the bias
55
Test for Symmetric Disagreement Quasi-Symmetry



Tests relationships among the off-diagonal counts









Better the fit, higher the correlation
56
(Potential) Subjective Elements
  • Same word, different types
  • Great majority objective
  • Great! positive evaluative
  • Just great. negative evaluative

57
Review Mining
From HoodoohoodooBUGZAPPER_at_newnorth.net Newsgro
ups rec.gardens Subject Re Garden software I
bought a copy of Garden Encyclopedia from
Sierra. Well worth the time and money.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com