MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997141632 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6517

Replicate, Walk, and Stop on Syntax: An Effective Neural Network Model for Aspect-Level Sentiment Classification

2020· article· en· W2997141632 on OpenAlexaff
Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Samuel Mensah, Yongyi Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersBeijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data and Brain ComputingFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesState Key Laboratory of Software Development EnvironmentNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceSentenceArtificial intelligenceSentiment analysisSyntaxLeverage (statistics)Natural language processingRepresentation (politics)Machine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspect-level sentiment classification (ALSC) aims at predicting the sentiment polarity of a specific aspect term occurring in a sentence. This task requires learning a representation by aggregating the relevant contextual features concerning the aspect term. Existing methods cannot sufficiently leverage the syntactic structure of the sentence, and hence are difficult to distinguish different sentiments for multiple aspects in a sentence. We perceive the limitations of the previous methods and propose a hypothesis about finding crucial contextual information with the help of syntactic structure. For this purpose, we present a neural network model named RepWalk which performs a replicated random walk on a syntax graph, to effectively focus on the informative contextual words. Empirical studies show that our model outperforms recent models on most of the benchmark datasets for the ALSC task. The results suggest that our method for incorporating syntactic structure enriches the representation for the classification.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.195
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.137 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207