MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cross-domain Sentiment Classification with Prompt Pre-training and Tuning

2024· article· en· W4408860552 on OpenAlexaff
S. X. Du

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTraining (meteorology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Artificial intelligenceSentiment analysisMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentiment classification, as an essential task for understanding the sentiment content of texts, has garnered extensive attention. However, existing methods face numerous challenges, such as the mismatch between training and testing data in specific domains, which results in insufficient adaptability of models to new domains. Prompt learning is a parameter-efficient strategy that effectively enables pre-trained models to adapt to downstream tasks. In this paper, we propose a novel two-stage method called PT<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup>, which consists of two key components: prompt pre-training and prompt fine-tuning. During the prompt pre-training phase, we employ masked language modeling and cross-domain prompt learning, aiming to uncover latent sentiments and acquire cross-domain knowledge. In the prompt fine-tuning phase, we apply the pre-trained model to specific cross-domain sentiment classification tasks, adjusting the model parameters through additional sentiment prompt templates to improve its performance on these specific tasks. We conducted experiments on publicly available datasets and established nine different cross-domain settings. The results indicate that the model, employing our proposed $\mathrm{PT}^{2}$, significantly outperforms previous state-of-the-art approaches in cross-domain sentiment classification tasks.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207