Advertisement

Evolutionary Intelligence

, Volume 11, Issue 1–2, pp 3–17 | Cite as

AA-CDNB: adaptive autoregressive CAVIAR-dragonfly optimization with Naive Bayes for reason identification

  • Harshali P. Patil
  • Mohammad Atique
Special Issue

Abstract

Sentiment analysis is the critical process, which generates the subjective information from the text documents that are available online. Literature presents various kinds of task, like sentiment classification, affect classification, reason identification, and predictive analysis and so on, for sentiment analysis. This work brings the reason identification system from the classified sentiment and the affect classes through the automation of the optimization techniques. The proposed adaptive autoregressive conditional autoregressive value at risk-dragonfly optimization with Naive Bayes (AA-CDNB) algorithm finds the reasons behind the sentiments present in the tweets by joining the dragonfly algorithm and the Naive Bayes classifier. Also, the proposed model utilizes the tangential weighted moving average (TWMA) model, for predicting the sentiment reasons to appear shortly. The experimentation of the proposed work utilizes the BITS PILANI tweets database for the simulation and further, the results are compared with various models. The proposed AA-CDNB model has outclassed other models with the values of 1, 0.888, and 0.920, for the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy metrics, respectively. Also, the results of the TWMA prediction model is compared with the other models based on the error performance, and it is proved that the TWMA model has improved results.

Keywords

Reason identification Dragonfly algorithm Naive Bayes Prediction TWMA 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Hai Z, Cong G, Chang K, Cheng P, Miao C (2017) Analyzing sentiments in one go: a supervised joint topic modeling approach. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 29(6):1172–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ji X, Chun SA, Wei Z, Geller J (2015) Twitter sentiment classification for measuring public health concerns. Soc Netw Anal Min 5(1):5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jiang D, Luo X, Xuan J, Xu Z (2017) Sentiment computing for the news event based on the social media big data. IEEE Access 5:2373–2382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riaz S, Fatima M, Kamran M, Nisar MW (2017) Opinion mining on large scale data using sentiment analysis and k-means clustering. Cluster Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-017-1077-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lei X, Qian X, Zhao G (2016) Rating prediction based on social sentiment from textual reviews. IEEE Trans Multimed 18(9):1910–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang Z, Jiang LA (2015) Managing corporate crisis in China: sentiment, reason, and law. Bus Horiz 58(2):193–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zheng L, Wang H, Gao S (2018) Sentimental feature selection for sentiment analysis of Chinese online reviews. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 9(1):75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manek AS, Shenoy PD, Mohan MC, Venugopal KR (2017) Aspect term extraction for sentiment analysis in large movie reviews using Gini Index feature selection method and SVM classifier. World Wide Web 20(2):135–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liew WS, Seera M, Loo CK, Lim E (2015) Affect classification using genetic-optimized ensembles of fuzzy ARTMAPs. Appl Soft Comput 27:53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim JC, Clements MA (2015) Multimodal affect classification at various temporal lengths. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 6(4):371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gatti L, Guerini M, Turchi M (2016) SentiWords: deriving a high precision and high coverage lexicon for sentiment analysis. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 7(4):409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melville P, Gryc W, Lawrence RD (2009) Sentiment analysis of blogs by combining lexical knowledge with text classification. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Paris, France, pp 1275–1284Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin J, Mao W, Zeng DD (2017) Personality-based refinement for sentiment classification in microblog. Knowl Based Syst 132:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shang L, Zhou Z, Liu X (2016) Particle swarm optimization-based feature selection in sentiment classification. Soft Comput 20(10):3821–3834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu B (2012) Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synth Lect Hum Lang Technol 5(1):1–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blitzer J, Dredze M, Pereira F (2007) Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes, and blenders: domain adaptation for sentiment classification. In: Proceedings of the 45th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 440–447Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin Z, Jin X, Xu X, Wang Y, Cheng X, Wang, W, Meng D (2016) An unsupervised cross-lingual topic model framework for sentiment classification. In: IEEE/ACM transactions on audio, speech and language processing, vol 24(3), pp 432–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu Y, Bi JW, Fan ZP (2017) Ranking products through online reviews: a method based on sentiment analysis technique and intuitionistic fuzzy set theory. Inf Fusion 36:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu F, Yuan Z, Huang Y (2017) Collaboratively training sentiment classifiers for multiple domains. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 29(7):1370–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ratre A, Pankajakshan V (2017) Tucker visual search-based hybrid tracking model and Fractional Kohonen Self-Organizing Map for anomaly localization and detection in surveillance videos. Imaging Sci J 66:1–16Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dhumane AV, Prasad RS (2017) Multi-objective fractional gravitational search algorithm for energy efficient routing in IoT. Wireless networks, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nipanikar SI, Deepthi VH, Nikita Kulkarni (2017) A sparse representation based image steganography using particle swarm optimization and wavelet transform. ​Alexandria Eng J.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shelke PM, Prasad RS (2018) An improved anti-forensics JPEG compression using Least Cuckoo Search algorithm. Imaging Sci J 66(3):169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krishnamoorthy N, Asokan R (2014) Optimized resource selection to promote grid scheduling using hill climbing algorithm. 5(2):14–19Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Amplayo RK, Song M (2017) An adaptable fine-grained sentiment analysis for summarization of multiple short online reviews. Data Knowl Eng 110:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zahedi E, Saraee M (2017) SSAM: toward supervised sentiment and aspect modeling on different levels of labelling. Soft Comput 4:1–12Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pu X, Wu G, Yuan C (2017) User-aware topic modeling of online reviews. Multimed Syst 2017:1–11Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hasan KS, Ng V (2014) Why are you taking this stance? Identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In: Proceedings of the conference on emperical methods in natural language processing, pp 751–762Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pu X, Wu G, Yuan C (2017) Exploring overall opinions for document-level sentiment classification with structural SVM. Multimed Syst 2017:1–13Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu F, Huang Y, Yuan Z (2017) Domain-specific sentiment classification via fusing sentiment knowledge from multiple sources. Inf Fusion 35:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saif H, Fernández M, He Y, Alani H (2014) On stopwords, filtering and data sparsity for sentiment analysis of Twitter. In: Proceedings of LREC 2014, ninth international conference on language resources and evaluation, pp 810–817Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mirjalili S (2016) Dragonfly algorithm: a new meta-heuristic optimization technique for solving single-objective, discrete, and multi-objective problems. Neural Comput Appl 27(4):1053–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Engle RF, Manganelli S (2004) CAViaR: conditional autoregressive value at risk by regression quantiles. J Bus Econ Stat 22(4):367–381MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Philip FM, Mukesh R (2016) Hybrid tracking model for multiple object videos using second derivative based visibility model and tangential weighted spatial tracking model. Int J Comput Intell Syst 9(5):888–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringSant Gadge Baba Amravati UniversityMaharashtraIndia

Personalised recommendations