The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinguishing between facts and opinions for sentiment analysis: Survey and challenges
Abstract
Abstract Sentiment analysis requires a lot of information coming from different sources and about different topics to be retrieved and fused. For this reason, one of the most important subtasks of sentiment analysis is subjectivity detection, i.e., the removal of ‘factual’ or ‘neutral’ comments that lack sentiment. It is possibly the most essential subtask of sentiment analysis as sentiment classifiers are often optimized to categorize text as either negative or positive and, hence, forcefully fit unopinionated sentences into one of these two categories. This article reviews hand-crafted and automatic models for subjectivity detection in the literature. It highlights the key assumptions these models make, the results they obtain, and the issues that still need to be explored to further our understanding of subjective sentences. Lastly, the advantages and limitations of each approach are compared. The methods can be broadly categorized as hand-crafted, automatic, and multi-modal. Hand-crafted templates work well on strong sentiments, however they are unable to identify weakly subjective sentences. Automatic methods such as deep learning provide a meta-level feature representation that generalizes well on new domains and languages. Multi-modal methods can combine the abundant audio and video forms of social data with text using multiple kernels. We conclude that the high-dimensionality of n-gram features and temporal nature of sentiments in long product reviews are the major challenges in sentiment mining from text.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification
Kim, Y. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1181 · Cited by 14,831
WordNet: a lexical database for English
Miller, G. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219717.219748 · Cited by 14,015 · cited 2×
“WordNet is an example of a well-known semantic network [38,39].”
BackgroundRecursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank
Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A., & Potts, C. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d13-1170 · Cited by 6,878
A unified architecture for natural language processing: deep neural networks with multitask learning
Collobert, R., & Weston, J. (2008) · Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning - ICML '08 · doi:10.1145/1390156.1390177 · Cited by 5,058
Learning Word Vectors for Sentiment Analysis
Maas, A. L., Daly, R. E., Pham, P. T., Huang, D., Ng, A. Y., & Potts, C. (2011) · Cited by 3,751
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews
Peter, P., & Turney (2002) · Cited by 3,650
A Convolutional Neural Network for Modelling Sentences
Kalchbrenner, N., Grefenstette, E., & Blunsom, P. (2014) · Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.3115/v1/p14-1062 · Cited by 3,601
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975) · Cited by 3,562
A sentimental education: sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2004) · Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '04 · doi:10.3115/1218955.1218990 · Cited by 3,301
CROWDSOURCING A WORD–EMOTION ASSOCIATION LEXICON
Mohammad, S. M., & Turney, P. D. (2013) · Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00460.x · Cited by 2,634
Cited by
Sentiment analysis using deep learning architectures: a review
Yadav, A., & Vishwakarma, D. K. (2020) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-019-09794-5 · Cited by 841
A Deep Siamese Convolution Neural Network for Multi-Class Classification of Alzheimer Disease
Mehmood, A., Maqsood, M., Bashir, M., & Shuyuan, Y. (2020) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci10020084 · Cited by 264
Cognitive Computing: Architecture, Technologies and Intelligent Applications
Chen, M., Herrera, F., & Hwang, K. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2791469 · Cited by 242
Self-citationFuzzy logic applied to opinion mining: A review
Serrano-Guerrero, J., Romero, F. P., & Olivas, J. A. (2021) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107018 · Cited by 141
Srba, I., Razuvayevskaya, O., Leite, J. A., Moro, R., Schlicht, I. B., Tonelli, S., García, F. M., Lottmann, S. B., Teyssou, D., Porcellini, V., et al. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3770077 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaturvedi, I., Cambria, E., Welsch, R. E., & Herrera, F.
- Venue
- Information Fusion
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 44
- Pages
- 65-77
- ISSN
- 1566-2535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2780698117
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 95
- FWCI
- 15.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distinguishing between facts and opinions for sentiment analysis: Survey and challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.12.006
- The paper
- Chaturvedi, I., Cambria, E., Welsch, R. E., & Herrera, F. (2018). Distinguishing between facts and opinions for sentiment analysis: Survey and challenges. Information Fusion. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.12.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
