Make Compound Sentences Simple to Analyze: Learning to Split Sentences for Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the domain of Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA), generative methods have shown promising results and achieved substantial advancements.However, despite these advancements, the tasks of extracting sentiment quadruplets, which capture the nuanced sentiment expressions within a sentence, remain significant challenges.In particular, compound sentences can potentially contain multiple quadruplets, making the extraction task increasingly difficult as sentence complexity grows.To address this issue, we are focusing on simplifying sentence structures to facilitate the easier recognition of these elements and crafting a model that integrates seamlessly with various ABSA tasks.In this paper, we propose Aspect Term Oriented Sentence Splitter (ATOSS), which simplifies compound sentence into simpler and clearer forms, thereby clarifying their structure and intent.As a plug-and-play module, this approach retains the parameters of the ABSA model while making it easier to identify essential intent within input sentences.Extensive experimental results show that utilizing ATOSS outperforms existing methods in both ASQP and ACOS tasks, which are the primary tasks for extracting sentiment quadruplets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".