Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 446

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying comparative sentences in text documents

Jindal, Nitin, Liu, Bing·2006·Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval

Abstract

This paper studies the problem of identifying comparative sentences in text documents. The problem is related to but quite different from sentiment/opinion sentence identification or classification. Sentiment classification studies the problem of classifying a document or a sentence based on the subjective opinion of the author. An important application area of sentiment/opinion identification is business intelligence as a product manufacturer always wants to know consumers' opinions on its products. Comparisons on the other hand can be subjective or objective. Furthermore, a comparison is not concerned with an object in isolation. Instead, it compares the object with others. An example opinion sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is poor". An example comparative sentence is "the sound quality of CD player X is not as good as that of CD player Y". Clearly, these two sentences give different information. Their language constructs are quite different too. Identifying comparative sentences is also useful in practice because direct comparisons are perhaps one of the most convincing ways of evaluation, which may even be more important than opinions on each individual object. This paper proposes to study the comparative sentence identification problem. It first categorizes comparative sentences into different types, and then presents a novel integrated pattern discovery and supervised learning approach to identifying comparative sentences from text documents. Experiment results using three types of documents, news articles, consumer reviews of products, and Internet forum postings, show a precision of 79% and recall of 81%. More detailed results are given in the paper.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1148170.1148215

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 446

Metadata

Authors
Jindal, N., & Liu, B.
Venue
Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
Publisher
ACM
Published
2006-08-06
Pages
244-251
OpenAlex
W1988931981
Cited by
446
References
1
FWCI
11.29
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: Identifying comparative sentences in text documents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1148170.1148215
The paper
Jindal, N., & Liu, B. (2006). Identifying comparative sentences in text documents. Proceedings of the 29th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. https://doi.org/10.1145/1148170.1148215

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.