Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

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

Summarizing Opinions: Aspect Extraction Meets Sentiment Prediction and They Are Both Weakly Supervised

Angelidis, Stefanos, Lapata, Mirella·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1808.08858arXiv 1808.08858
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present a neural framework for opinion summarization from online product reviews which is knowledge-lean and only requires light supervision (e.g., in the form of product domain labels and user-provided ratings). Our method combines two weakly supervised components to identify salient opinions and form extractive summaries from multiple reviews: an aspect extractor trained under a multi-task objective, and a sentiment predictor based on multiple instance learning. We introduce an opinion summarization dataset that includes a training set of product reviews from six diverse domains and human-annotated development and test sets with gold standard aspect annotations, salience labels, and opinion summaries. Automatic evaluation shows significant improvements over baselines, and a large-scale study indicates that our opinion summaries are preferred by human judges according to multiple criteria.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1808.08858

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Aspect-based opinion summarization. Opinions on image quality, sound quality, connectivity, and price of an LCD television are extracted from a set of reviews. Their polarities are then used to sort them into positive and negative, while neutral or redundant comments are discarded.
Figure 1 Aspect-based opinion summarization. Opinions on image quality, sound quality, connectivity, and price of an LCD television are extracted from a set of reviews. Their polarities are then used to sort them into positive and negative, while neutral or redundant comments are discarded.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Multi-Seed Aspect Extractor (MATE).
Figure 2 Multi-Seed Aspect Extractor (MATE).CC-BY · From the PDF

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Stefanos Angelidis and Mirella Lapata. 2018. Multiple Instance Learning Networks for Fine-Grained Senti- ment Analysis. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 6:17-31.
  2. Parminder Bhatia, Yangfeng Ji, and Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. Better document-level sentiment analysis from RST discourse parsing. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2212-2218, Lisbon, Portugal.
  3. Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, Kerry Hannan, Ryan McDon- ald, Tyler Neylon, George Reis, and Jeff Reynar. 2008. Building a sentiment summarizer for local service reviews. In Proceedings of the WWW Work- shop on NLP Challenges in the Information Explo- sion Era (NLPIX), Beijing, China.
  4. Ziqiang Cao, Wenjie Li, Sujian Li, and Furu Wei. 2017. Improving multi-document summarization via text classification. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 3053-3059, San Francisco, California, USA.
  5. Ziqiang Cao, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Sujian Li, and Ming Zhou. 2015. Ranking with recursive neural net- works and its application to multi-document summa- rization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2153- 2159, Austin, Texas, USA.
  6. Steve Cronen-Townsend, Yun Zhou, and W. Bruce Croft. 2002. Predicting query performance. In Pro- ceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SI- GIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '02, pages 299-306, New York, NY, USA.
  7. Günes Erkan and Dragomir R Radev. 2004. Lexrank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22:457-479.
  8. Wei Vanessa Feng and Graeme Hirst. 2012. Text-level discourse parsing with rich linguistic features. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, volume 1, pages 60-68, Jeju Island, Korea.
  9. Kavita Ganesan, ChengXiang Zhai, and Jiawei Han. 2010. Opinosis: a graph-based approach to abstrac- tive summarization of highly redundant opinions. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 340-348, Beijing, China.
  10. Ruidan He, Wee Sun Lee, Hwee Tou Ng, and Daniel Dahlmeier. 2017. An unsupervised neural attention model for aspect extraction. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, volume 1, pages 388-397, Van- couver, Canada.
  11. Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. Mining and summa- rizing customer reviews. In Proceeding of the 10th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowl- edge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 168-177, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  12. Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2006. Opinion extraction and summarization on the web. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, pages 1621-1624, Boston, Massachusettes, USA.
  13. Mohit Iyyer, Anupam Guha, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Jor- dan Boyd-Graber, and Hal Daumé III. 2016. Feud- ing families and former friends: Unsupervised learn- ing for dynamic fictional relationships. In Proceed- ings of the 2016 Conference of the North Ameri- can Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 1534-1544, San Diego, California.
  14. Hyun Duk Kim, Kavita Ganesan, Parikshit Sondhi, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2011. Comprehensive review of opinion summarization. Technical report.
  15. Yoon Kim. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 1746-1751, Doha, Qatar.
  16. Svetlana Kiritchenko and Saif Mohammad. 2017. Best-worst scaling more reliable than rating scales: A case study on sentiment intensity annotation. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), volume 2, pages 465-470, Vancou- ver, Canada.
  17. Philipp Koehn. 2004. Statistical significance tests for machine translation evaluation. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2004, pages 388-395, Barcelona, Spain.
  18. Dimitrios Kotzias, Misha Denil, Nando De Freitas, and Padhraic Smyth. 2015. From group to individual la- bels using deep features. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowl- edge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 597-606, Sydney, Australia.
  19. Lun-Wei Ku, Yun-Ting Liang, and Hsin-Hsi Chen. 2006. Opinion extraction, summarization and track- ing in news and blog corpora. In AAAI Syposium on Computational Approaches to Analysing Weblogs, pages 100-107, Palo Alto, California, USA.
  20. Kevin Lerman, Sasha Blair-Goldensohn, and Ryan Mc- Donald. 2009. Sentiment summarization: Evaluat- ing and learning user preferences. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL '09, pages 514-522. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Junyi Jessy Li, Kapil Thadani, and Amanda Stent. 2016. The role of discourse units in near-extractive summarization. In Proceedings of the SIGDIAL 2016 Conference, The 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pages 137-147, Los Angeles, California, USA.
  22. Chin-Yew Lin and Eduard Hovy. 2003. Auto- matic evaluation of summaries using n-gram co- occurrence statistics. In Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 71-78. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.
  23. Bing Liu. 2012. Sentiment analysis and opinion min- ing. Synthesis lectures on human language tech- nologies, 5(1):1-167.
  24. Bing Liu and Lei Zhang. 2012. A survey of opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Mining Text Data, Springer, pages 415-463.
  25. Pengfei Liu, Shafiq Joty, and Helen Meng. 2015. Fine- grained opinion mining with recurrent neural net- works and word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 1433-1443, Lisbon, Portugal.
  26. Jordan J Louviere, Terry N Flynn, and Anthony Al- fred John Marley. 2015. Best-worst scaling: The- ory, methods and applications. Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
  27. Yue Lu, ChengXiang Zhai, and Neel Sundaresan. 2009. Rated aspect summarization of short comments. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, pages 131-140, Madrid, Spain.
  28. William C. Mann and Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional the- ory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Jour- nal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3):243-281.
  29. Julian McAuley, Christopher Targett, Qinfeng Shi, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2015. Image-based recom- mendations on styles and substitutes. In Proceed- ings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Confer- ence on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 43-52, Santiago, Chile.
  30. Qiaozhu Mei, Xu Ling, Matthew Wondra, Hang Su, and ChengXiang Zhai. 2007. Topic sentiment mix- ture: Modeling facets and opinions in weblogs. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, pages 171-180, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
  31. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Cor- rado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representa- tions of words and phrases and their compositional- ity. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 3111-3119, Lake Tahoe, California, USA.
  32. Arjun Mukherjee and Bing Liu. 2012. Modeling re- view comments. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 320-329, Jeju Island, Korea.
  33. Nikolaos Pappas and Andrei Popescu-Belis. 2017. Explicit document modeling through weighted multiple-instance learning. Journal of Artificial In- telligence Research, 58:591-626.
  34. Ana-Maria Popescu and Oren Etzioni. 2005. Extract- ing product features and opinions from reviews. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Con- ference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 339-346, Van- couver, British Columbia, Canada.
  35. Dragomir R. Radev, Simone Teufel, Horacio Saggion, Wai Lam, John Blitzer, Hong Qi, Arda C ¸elebi, Danyu Liu, and Elliott Drabek. 2003. Evaluation challenges in large-scale document summarization. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, pages 375- 382. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  36. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Y. Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep mod- els for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  37. Ivan Titov and Ryan McDonald. 2008a. A joint model of text and aspect ratings for sentiment summariza- tion. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 308-316, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
  38. Ivan Titov and Ryan McDonald. 2008b. Modeling on- line reviews with multi-grain topic models. In Pro- ceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, pages 111-120, Beijing, China.
  39. Lu Wang and Wang Ling. 2016. Neural network-based abstract generation for opinions and arguments. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 47-57. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  40. Wenya Wang, Sinno Jialin Pan, Daniel Dahlmeier, and Xiaokui Xiao. 2016. Recursive neural conditional random fields for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 616-626, Austin, Texas, USA.
  41. Michihiro Yasunaga, Rui Zhang, Kshitijh Meelu, Ayush Pareek, Krishnan Srinivasan, and Dragomir Radev. 2017. Graph-based neural multi-document summarization. In Proceedings of the 21st Confer- ence on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 452-462, Vancouver, Canada.
  42. Yichun Yin, Furu Wei, Li Dong, Kaimeng Xu, Ming Zhang, and Ming Zhou. 2016. Unsupervised word and dependency path embeddings for aspect term extraction. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Inter- national Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2979-2985, New York, NY, USA.
  43. Ying Zhao, George Karypis, and Usama Fayyad. 2005. Hierarchical clustering algorithms for docu- ment datasets. Data Mining and Knowledge Dis- covery, 10(2):141-168.

Cited by

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Angelidis, S., & Lapata, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1808.08858
arXiv
1808.08858
References
1
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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

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.