Performance analysis of new word weighting procedures for opinion mining



The proliferation of forums and blogs leads to challenges and opportunities for processing large amounts of information. The information shared on various topics often contains opinionated words which are qualitative in nature. These qualitative words need statistical computations to convert them into useful quantitative data. This data should be processed properly since it expresses opinions. Each of these opinion bearing words differs based on the significant meaning it conveys. To process the linguistic meaning of words into data and to enhance opinion mining analysis, we propose a novel weighting scheme, referred to as inferred word weighting (IWW). IWW is computed based on the significance of the word in the document (SWD) and the significance of the word in the expression (SWE) to enhance their performance. The proposed weighting methods give an analytic view and provide appropriate weights to the words compared to existing methods. In addition to the new weighting methods, another type of checking is done on the performance of text classification by including stop-words. Generally, stop-words are removed in text processing. When this new concept of including stop-words is applied to the proposed and existing weighting methods, two facts are observed: (1) Classification performance is enhanced; (2) The outcome difference between inclusion and exclusion of stop-words is smaller in the proposed methods, and larger in existing methods. The inferences provided by these observations are discussed. Experimental results of the benchmark data sets show the potential enhancement in terms of classification accuracy.

Key words

Inferred word weight Opinion mining Supervised classification Support vector machine (SVM) Machine learning 

CLC number



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andreevskaia, A., Bergler, S., 2008. When specialists and generalists work together: overcoming domain dependence in sentiment tagging. Proc. ACL-08, p.290–298.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, T.G., Moffat, A., Webber, W., et al., 2009. Improvements that don’t add up: ad-hoc retrieval results since 1998. Proc. 18th ACM Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, p.601–610. Scholar
  3. Barnes, S.J., Bohringer, M., 2011. Modeling use continuance behavior in micro blogging services: the case of Twitter. J. Comput. Inform. Syst., 51(4):1–10.Google Scholar
  4. Blitzer, J., Dredze, M., Pereira, F., 2007. Biographies, bollywood, boom-boxes and blenders: domain adaptation for sentiment classification. Proc. 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, p.440–447.Google Scholar
  5. Boiy, E., Moens, M.F., 2009. A machine learning approach to sentiment analysis in multilingual web texts. Inform. Retr., 12(5):526–558. Scholar
  6. Boiy, E., Hens, P., Deschacht, K., et al., 2007. Automatic sentiment analysis in on-line text. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Electronic Publishing, p.349–360.Google Scholar
  7. Church, K.W., Hanks, P., 1989. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Proc. 27th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p.76–83. Scholar
  8. Das, S., Chen, M., 2001. Yahoo! for Amazon: extracting market sentiment from stock message boards. Manag. Sci., 53(9):1375–1388. Scholar
  9. Debole, F., Sebastiani, F., 2003. Supervised term weighting for automated text categorization. Proc. ACM Symp. on Applied Computing, p.784–788. Scholar
  10. Esparza, S.G., O’Mahony, M.P., Smyth, B., 2012. Mining the real-time web: a novel approach to product recommendation. Knowl.-Based Syst., 29(3):3–11. Scholar
  11. Gabrilovich, E., Markovitch, S., 2004. Text categorization with many redundant features: using aggressive feature selection to make SVMs competitive with C4.5. Proc. 21st Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, p.41–50. Scholar
  12. Geng, L., Hamilton, H.J., 2006. Interestingness measures for data mining: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 38(3), Article 9. Scholar
  13. He, B., Huang, J.X.J., Zhou, X., 2011. Modeling term proximity for probabilistic information retrieval models. Inform. Sci., 181(14):3017–3031. Scholar
  14. Lee, S., Song, J., Kim, Y., 2010. An empirical comparison of four text mining methods. J. Comput. Inform. Syst., 51(1):1–10.Google Scholar
  15. Li, S., Xia, R., Zong, C., et al., 2009. A framework of feature selection methods for text categorization. Proc. Joint Conf. 47th Annual Meeting of the ACL and Proc. 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Natural Language of the AFNLP, p.692–700.Google Scholar
  16. Maas, A.L., Daly, R.E., Pham, P.T., et al., 2011. Learning word vectors for sentiment analysis. Proc. 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p.142–150.Google Scholar
  17. Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H., 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mladenić, D., Grobelnik, M., 1998. Feature selection for classification based on text hierarchy. Proc. Int. Conf. on Automated Learning and Discovery.Google Scholar
  19. Ng, V., Dasgupta, S., Arifin, S.M.N., 2006. Examining the role of linguistic knowledge sources in the automatic identification and classification of reviews. Proc. Int. Conf. on COLING/ACL, p.611–618.Google Scholar
  20. Nigam, K., McCallum, A.K., Thrun, S., et al., 2000. Text classification from labeled and unlabeled documents using EM. Mach. Learn., 39(2–3):103–134. Scholar
  21. Paltoglou, G., Thelwall, M., 2010. A study of information retrieval weighting schemes for sentiment analysis. Proc. 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p.1386–1395. Scholar
  22. Pang, B., Lee, L., 2004. A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. Proc. 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, p.271–278. Scholar
  23. Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S., 2002. Thumbs up?: sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. Proc. Conf. on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, p.79–86. Scholar
  24. Saif, H., He, Y., Alani, H., 2012. Alleviating data sparsity for Twitter sentiment analysis. CEUR Workshop Proc., p.2–9.Google Scholar
  25. Salton, G., Buckley, C., 1998. Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Inform. Process. Manag., 24(5):513–523. Scholar
  26. Salvetti, F., Lewis, S., Reichenbach, C., 2004. Impact of lexical filtering on overall opinion polarity identification. Proc. AAAI Spring Symp. on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text: Theories and Applications.Google Scholar
  27. Sebastiani, F., 2002. Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput. Surv., 34(1):1–47. Scholar
  28. Sheikh, M., Conlon, S., 2012. A rule-based system to extract financial information. J. Comput. Inform. Syst., 52(4):10–19. Scholar
  29. Simmons, L., Conlon, S., Mukhopadhyay, S., et al., 2011. A computer aided content analysis of online reviews. J. Comput. Inform. Syst., 52(1):43–55. Scholar
  30. Tong, R.M., 2001. An operational system for detecting and tracking opinions in on-line discussion. Working Notes of the ACM SIGIR Workshop on Operational Text Classification, p.1–6.Google Scholar
  31. Tsutsumi, K., Shimada, K.K., Endo, T., 2007. Movie review classification based on a multiple classifier. Proc. Annual Meetings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conf. on Language, Information and Computation, p.481–488.Google Scholar
  32. Xu, Y., Jones, G.J., Li, J., et al., 2007. A study on mutual information-based feature selection for text categorization. J. Comput. Inform. Syst., 3(3):1007–1012. Scholar
  33. Zaidan, O., Eisner, J., Piatko, C.D., 2007. Using “annotator rationales” to improve machine learning for text categorization. Proc. HLT-NAACL, p.260–267.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Zhejiang University Science Editorial Office and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ComputingSASTRA UniversityThanjavurIndia

Personalised recommendations