Predicting Subjectivity Orientation of Online Forum Threads

  • Prakhar Biyani
  • Cornelia Caragea
  • Prasenjit Mitra
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7817)


Online forums contain huge amounts of valuable information in the form of discussions between forum users. The topics of discussions can be subjective seeking opinions of other users on some issue or non-subjective seeking factual answer to specific questions. Internet users search these forums for different types of information such as opinions, evaluations, speculations, facts, etc. Hence, knowing subjectivity orientation of forum threads would improve information search in online forums. In this paper, we study methods to analyze subjectivity of online forum threads. We build binary classifiers on textual features extracted from thread content to classify threads as subjective or non-subjective. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods on two popular online forums.


Sentiment Analysis Minority Class Balance Sample Online Forum Subjectivity Analysis 
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.
    Seo, J., Croft, W., Smith, D.: Online community search using thread structure. In: CIKM, pp. 1907–1910. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatia, S., Mitra, P.: Adopting inference networks for online thread retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI, pp. 1300–1305 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hu, M., Liu, B.: Mining and summarizing customer reviews. In: SIGKDD, pp. 168–177. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, B.: Sentiment analysis and subjectivity. In: Handbook of Natural Language Processing (2010) ISBN: 978–1420085921Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ly, D., Sugiyama, K., Lin, Z., Kan, M.: Product review summarization from a deeper perspective. In: JCDL, pp. 311–314 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li, B., Liu, Y., Ram, A., Garcia, E., Agichtein, E.: Exploring question subjectivity prediction in community qa. In: SIGIR, pp. 735–736. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gurevych, I., Bernhard, D., Ignatova, K., Toprak, C.: Educational question answering based on social media content. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling, pp. 133–140 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stoyanov, V., Cardie, C., Wiebe, J.: Multi-perspective question answering using the opqa corpus. In: EMNLP, pp. 923–930. Association for Computational Linguistics (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, H., Hatzivassiloglou, V.: Towards answering opinion questions: Separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In: EMNLP, pp. 129–136. Association for Computational Linguistics (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pang, B., Lee, L.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2, 1–135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Somasundaran, S., Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., Stoyanov, V.: Qa with attitude: Exploiting opinion type analysis for improving question answering in on-line discussions and the news. In: ICWSM (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seki, Y., Eguchi, K., Kando, N., Aono, M.: Multi-document summarization with subjectivity analysis at duc 2005. In: DUC. Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carenini, G., Ng, R., Pauls, A.: Multi-document summarization of evaluative text. In: EACL, pp. 305–312 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biyani, P., Bhatia, S., Caragea, C., Mitra, P.: Thread specific features are helpful for identifying subjectivity orientation of online forum threads. In: COLING, pp. 295–310. ACL, Mumbai (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruce, R., Wiebe, J.: Recognizing subjectivity: a case study in manual tagging. Natural Language Engineering 5, 187–205 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riloff, E., Wiebe, J.: Learning extraction patterns for subjective expressions. In: EMNLP, pp. 105–112. ACL (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, B., Liu, Y., Agichtein, E.: Cocqa: co-training over questions and answers with an application to predicting question subjectivity orientation. In: EMNLP, pp. 937–946. ACL, Stroudsburg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yu, H., Hatzivassiloglou, V.: Towards answering opinion questions: separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In: EMNLP, pp. 129–136. ACL, Stroudsburg (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aikawa, N., Sakai, T., Yamana, H.: Community qa question classification: Is the asker looking for subjective answers or not? IPSJ Online Transactions 4, 160–168 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mitchell, T.: Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, Burr Ridge (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Kittler, J., Roli, F. (eds.) MCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1857, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., Witten, I.: The weka data mining software: an update. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 11, 10–18 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang, Y., Pedersen, J.: Feature selection in statistical learning of text categorization. In: Proc. ICML, pp. 412–420 (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kubat, M., Matwin, S.: Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: One-sided selection. In: ICML, pp. 179–186. Morgan Kaufmann (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Prakhar Biyani
    • 1
  • Cornelia Caragea
    • 2
  • Prasenjit Mitra
    • 1
  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasUSA

Personalised recommendations