Cited by 14,831Topic ModelingSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classification

Open access
Kim, Yoon·2014·Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

Abstract

We report on a series of experiments with convolutional neural networks (CNN) trained on top of pre-trained word vectors for sentence-level classification tasks.We show that a simple CNN with little hyperparameter tuning and static vectors achieves excellent results on multiple benchmarks.Learning task-specific vectors through fine-tuning offers further gains in performance.We additionally propose a simple modification to the architecture to allow for the use of both task-specific and static vectors.The CNN models discussed herein improve upon the state of the art on 4 out of 7 tasks, which include sentiment analysis and question classification.

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 · 10.3115/v1/d14-1181

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 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?

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: 4

  1. Y. Bengio, R. Ducharme, P. Vincent. 2003. Neu- ral Probabilitistic Language Model. Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research 3:1137-1155.
  2. J. Duchi, E. Hazan, Y. Singer. 2011 Adaptive subgra- dient methods for online learning and stochastic op- timization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12:2121-2159.
  3. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, G. Hinton. 2012. Ima- geNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neu- ral Networks. In Proceedings of NIPS 2012.
  4. Q. Le, T. Mikolov. 2014. Distributed Represenations of Sentences and Documents. In Proceedings of ICML 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, Y.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Yoon
Venue
Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)
Published
2014
Pages
1746-1751
OpenAlex
W1832693441
Cited by
14,831
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 565 · 2025: 910 · 2024: 1113 · 2023: 1406 · 2022: 1592 · 2021: 2115 · 2020: 2260 · 2019: 2134 · 2018: 1532 · 2017: 755 · 2016: 334 · 2015: 115
FWCI
236.23
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
convolutional neural networks, sentence classification, pre-trained word vectors, static embeddings, fine-tuning, sentiment analysis, question classification

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