The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Deep Learning Techniques in Sentiment Analysis from Twitter Data
Abstract
This study presents a comparison of different deep learning methods used for sentiment analysis in Twitter data. In this domain, deep learning (DL) techniques, which contribute at the same time to the solution of a wide range of problems, gained popularity among researchers. Particularly, two categories of neural networks are utilized, convolutional neural networks(CNN), which are especially performant in the area of image processing and recurrent neural networks (RNN) which are applied with success in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. In this work we evaluate and compare ensembles and combinations of CNN and a category of RNN the long short-term memory (LSTM) networks. Additionally, we compare different word embedding systems such as the Word2Vec and the global vectors for word representation (GloVe) models. For the evaluation of those methods we used data provided by the international workshop on semantic evaluation (SemEval), which is one of the most popular international workshops on the area. Various tests and combinations are applied and best scoring values for each model are compared in terms of their performance. This study contributes to the field of sentiment analysis by analyzing the performances, advantages and limitations of the above methods with an evaluation procedure under a single testing framework with the same dataset and computing environment.
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
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568
Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling
Chung, J., Gulcehre, C., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.3555 · Cited by 11,008
Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Information
Bojanowski, P., Grave, E., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2017) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00051 · Cited by 9,645
What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010) · Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web · doi:10.1145/1772690.1772751 · Cited by 6,652
Fukushima, K. (1980) · Biological Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/bf00344251 · Cited by 5,759
Learning internal representations by error propagation
RUMELHART, D. E., HINTON, G. E., & WILLIAMS, R. J. (1988) · Readings in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-1446-7.50035-2 · Cited by 3,002
Object Recognition with Gradient-Based Learning
LeCun, Y., Haffner, P., Bottou, L., & Bengio, Y. (1999) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-46805-6_19 · Cited by 947
Cited by
A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text
Nandwani, P., & Verma, R. (2021) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-021-00776-6 · Cited by 869
A Survey of Sentiment Analysis: Approaches, Datasets, and Future Research
Tan, K. L., Lee, C. P., & Lim, K. M. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app13074550 · Cited by 303
Metadata
- Authors
- Goularas, D., & Kamis, S.
- Venue
- 2019 International Conference on Deep Learning and Machine Learning in Emerging Applications (Deep-ML)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-08
- Pages
- 12-17
- OpenAlex
- W2981840673
- Cited by
- 196
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 8.11
- Type
- conference paper
- 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: Evaluation of Deep Learning Techniques in Sentiment Analysis from Twitter Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/deep-ml.2019.00011
- The paper
- Goularas, D., & Kamis, S. (2019). Evaluation of Deep Learning Techniques in Sentiment Analysis from Twitter Data. 2019 International Conference on Deep Learning and Machine Learning in Emerging Applications (Deep-ML). https://doi.org/10.1109/deep-ml.2019.00011
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.