Cited by 64Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningTopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

DynaSent: A Dynamic Benchmark for Sentiment Analysis

Open access
Potts, Christopher, Wu, Zhengxuan, Geiger, Atticus, Kiela, Douwe·2021·Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

Christopher Potts, Zhengxuan Wu, Atticus Geiger, Douwe Kiela. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2021.

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 · 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.186

Cites

59 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 8 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Robustness checks with other sentiment classification tools show broad agreement with the RoBERTa results.

    “We also conducted robustness checks with other sentiment classification tools95–98, which show broad agreement with the RoBERTa results (Supplementary Sections 5 and 6).”

    From Generative language models exhibit social identity biases (2024) · cites this paper as [98]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Michael Chen, Mike D'Arcy, Alisa Liu, Jared Fer- nandez, and Doug Downey. 2019. CODAH: An adversarially-authored question answering dataset for common sense. In Proceedings of the 3rd Work- shop on Evaluating Vector Space Representations for NLP, pages 63-69, Minneapolis, USA. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V Le, and Christopher D Manning. 2019. ELECTRA: Pre- training text encoders as discriminators rather than generators. In International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
  3. ACL.
  4. Julian McAuley, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Learning attitudes and attributes from multi- aspect reviews. In 12th International Conference on Data Mining, pages 1020-1025, Washington, D.C. IEEE Computer Society.
  5. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Gar- nett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 30, pages 5998-6008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Potts, C., Wu, Z., Geiger, A., & Kiela, D.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Meta (United Kingdom) (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Published
2021
Pages
2388-2404
OpenAlex
W3117309749
Cited by
56
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17
FWCI
5.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
sentiment analysis, benchmark, sentiment lexicon

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