<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Samskara Minimal structural features for detecting subjectivity and polarity in Italian tweets</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Irene Russo</string-name>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>English. Sentiment analysis classification tasks strongly depend on the properties of the medium that is used to communicate opinionated content. There are some limitations in Twitter that force the user to exploit structural properties of this social network with features that have pragmatic and communicative functions. Samskara is a system that uses minimal structural features to classify Italian tweets as instantiations of a textual genre, obtaining good results for subjectivity classification, while polarity classification needs substantial improvements.</p>
      </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Italiano. I compiti di classificazione a
livello di sentiment analysis dipendono
fortemente dalle proprieta` del mezzo
usato per comunicare contenuti d’opinione.
Vi sono limiti oggettivi in Twitter che
forzano l’utente a sfruttare le proprieta`
strutturali del mezzo assegnando ad
alcuni elementi funzioni pragmatiche e
comunicative. Samskara e` un sistema che
si propone di classificare i tweets
italiani come se appartenessero a un genere
testuale, interprentandoli come elementi
caratterizzati da strutture minimali e
ottenendo buoni risultati nella classificazione
della soggettivita` mentre la classificazione
della polarita` ha bisogno di sostanziali
miglioramenti.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>1 Introduction</title>
      <p>After 15 years of NLP works on the topic
Sentiment Analysis is still a relevant task, mainly
because we assist every day to an exponential growth
of opinionated content on the web that require
computational systems to be managed. Detected,
extracted and classified, opinionated content can
also be labeled as positive or negative, but
additional categories (ambiguous, neutral etc.) are
possible. Resources and methodologies created
for the detection and classification of
subjectivity and polarity in reviews are not applicable with
good results on different data, such as tweets or
comments about news from online fora.</p>
      <p>
        There are several reasons behind this: first and
foremost, opinions can be expressed more or
less explicitly depending on the context; lexical
cues from lexical resources such as
SentiWordNet
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(Baccianella et al., 2010)</xref>
        or General Inquirer
(Stone, 1966) could be useless when people write
their point of views in complex and subtle ways.
Secondly, different media and platforms impose
different constraints on the structure of the
content expressed.
      </p>
      <p>Twitter’s limits in terms of characters force the use
of abbreviations and the omission of syntactic
elements. But users try to exploit creatively these
limitations, for example adding pragmatic
functions with emoticons.</p>
      <p>Features and functionalities anchoring the text to
extra-linguistic dimensions (such as mentions and
pictures in tweets or like/agree from other users
in online debates) should be considered in
Sentiment Analysis classification tasks because of to
their communicative functions.</p>
      <p>In this paper we present Samskara, a Lari lab
system for the classification of Italian tweets that took
part in two tasks at Sentipolc2016 (Task
1,subjectivity and Task 2, polarity classification). The
system is described in par. 2, with results presented in
2.2 where we discuss the limitations of the system.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>System description</title>
      <p>Samskara is a classification system based on a
minimal set of features that wants to address the
issue of subjectivity and polarity classifications of
Italian tweets. Tweets are considered as
instantiations of a textual genre, namely they have
specific structural properties with communicative and
pragmatic functions. In our approach, focusing on
the structural properties means:
abstracting the task from lexical values of
single words that could be a deceptive cue
because of lexical sparseness, ambiguity of
words, use of jargon and ironic exploitations
of words;
taking into account features used in
authorship attribution to represent abstract patterns
characterizing different styles, e.g. PoS tag
n-gram frequencies(Stamatos, 2009)1;
choosing a tagset for PoS that includes tags
peculiar of tweets as a textual genre, i.e.
interjection and emoticon.</p>
      <p>More generally, we want to capture high-level
linguistic and extra-linguistic properties of tweets,
also considering basic sequential structures in
forms of sequences of bigrams.
2.1</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Data analysis, data preprocessing and feature selection</title>
        <p>Before starting with the selections of features, data
analysis of the training set helped in the
investigation of several hypotheses.</p>
        <p>Polarised lexical items have been widely used in
sentiment analysis classification (Liu and Zhang,
2012) but resources in this field list values at
sense level (such as SentiWordNet) or conflate the
senses in a single entry (such as General Inquirer
and LIWC). Without an efficient word sense
disambiguation module, using SentiWordNet is
difficult. One strategy is to sum all the values and
to select a threshold for words that are tagged
as polarised in text. That means to overstimate
positive/negative content, without finding a clear
boundary between, for example, positive and
negative tweets.</p>
        <p>
          Considering the Italian version of LIWC2015
1For the moment we think that sequences of syntactic
relations are not useful because of the poor performance of
Italian syntactic parsers on tweets.
(Pennebaker et al., 2015) we see that
frequencies are unable to distinguish between positive and
negative tweets in the Sentipolc2016 training data
(see Table 1). To avoid this, we defined for
interclass
pos
neg
nal use a subset of SentiWordNet 3.0
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">(Baccianella
et al., 2010)</xref>
          that we call SWN Core selecting:
all the words corresponding to senses that are
polarised;
from the set above, all the words
corresponding to senses that display single-valued
polarity (i.e. they are always positive or always
negative);
from the set above we delete all the words
that have also a neutral sense;
we sum polarity values for every lemma in
order to have for example a single value for
lemmas listed in SWN with two different
positive values or three different negative
values.
        </p>
        <p>The English SWN Core is composed by 6640
exclusively positive lemmas and 7603 exclusively
negative lemmas. Since in these lists items have
a polarity value ranging from 0.125 to 3.25, with
the idea of selecting lemmas that are strongly
polarised we set 0.5 as threshold; as a consequence
of this decision we have 1844 very positive and
3272 very negative lemmas. After deletion of
multiword expressions these strongly opinionated
words have been translated to Italian using Google
Translate, manually checked and annotated with
PoS and polarity.</p>
        <p>We clean the lists, deleting lemmas that appear
two times, lemmas that have been translated as
multiword expressions and lemmas that do not
have polarity in Italian. At the end we have 890
positive and 1224 negative Italian lemmas.
Considering their frequencies in the training set (see
Table 2) we find out that only negative items are
distinctive. Because of the presence of ironic
tweets positive lemmas tend to occur in tweets that
have been tagged as negative. The exploitation of
positive words in ironic communication is a
wellknown phenomenon (Dews and Winner, 1995)
the positive literal meaning is subverted by the
negative intended meaning - and neglecting this
aspect of the Sentipolc2016 training set could
imply lower classification performances. If we
allow positive items from SWN Core in the system
the classification of negative tweets is made
difficult. As we mention above, structural properties
obj
subj
pos
neg</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>SWN Core+</title>
        <p>536 (0.76%)
2307 (1.4%)
1055 (4.8%)
839 (2%)</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>SWN Core</title>
        <p>264 (0.37%)
1608 (1%)
200 (0.9%)
1096 (2.6%)
of tweets can be treated as sequences of PoS. To
reduce data sparseness and to include dedicated
tags for Twitter we choose the tagset proposed
by PoSTWITA, an Evalita2016 task (Bosco et al.,
2016). It looks promising because it contains
categories that:
could be easily tagged as preprocessing step
with regular expressions (for example
MENTION and LINK);
are suitable for noisy data, tagging uniformly
items that can be written in several,
nonpredictable ways (ahahahha, haha as INTJ);
contains tags that have communicative and
pragmatic functions, such as emoticon and
interjection (see Table 4).</p>
        <p>We preprocessed all the tweets in the training set
substituting elements that are easy to find, such as
mention, hashtags, email, link, emoticon (all tags
included in PoSTWITA).</p>
        <p>After that, Sentipolc2016 training set has been
tagged with TreeTagger (Schmid, 1997);
TreeTagger tags have been converted to PostTWITA tagset
(see Table 3) and additional tags from PosTWITA
have been added, building dedicated lists for them
that include items from PoSTWITA training set
plus additional items selected by the authors (see
Table 4).</p>
        <p>Thanks to TreeTagger we have all the words
lemmatized and so all the lemmas included in the
negative counterpart of SWN Core can be substituted</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>TreeTagger</title>
        <p>AUX
DET
PRO
NPR
PUN</p>
        <p>SENT
VER[A-Z a-z]+cli
VER</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>PoSTWITA</title>
        <p>[A-Z a-z]+ AUX
[A-Z a-z]+ DET
[A-Z a-z]+ PRON
[A-Z a-z]+ PROPN</p>
        <p>PUNCT</p>
        <p>PUNCT</p>
        <p>VERB CLIT
[A-Z a-z]+ VERB
by the tag VERYNEG. At this point, with the
intention to have a minimal sequence of significant
tags, we created 4 version of the training set
according to 4 minimal structures, deleting all
lemmas and leaving only PoS tags:
minimal structure 1 (MSTRU1): EMO,
MENTION, HASHTAG, URL, EMAIL;
minimal structure 2 (MSTRU2): EMO,
MENTION, HASHTAG, URL, EMAIL,
PROPN, INTJ;
minimal structure 3 (MSTRU3): EMO,
MENTION, HASHTAG, URL, EMAIL,
PROPN, INTJ, ADJ, ADV;
minimal structure 4 (MSTRU4):
EMOTICON, MENTION, HASHTAG, URL,
EMAIL, PROPN, INTJ, VERYNEG.</p>
        <p>We performed classification experiments with
these features and we get better results with
MSTRU4 (see par. 2.2).</p>
        <p>For Samskara each tweet is represented as a
sequence including its EMO, MENTION,
HASHTAG, URL, EMAIL, PROPN (Proper Noun),
INTJ and VERYNEG lemmas from SWN Core
(see tweet in example 1 represented in example
2). This minimal, very compact way to
represent a tweet is very convenient because partially
avoids any noise introduced by PoS tagger
(containing only VERYNEG and PROPN as elements
that should be properly tagged with this tool).
(1) @FGoria Mario Monti Premier!
#Italiaresiste.
(2)</p>
        <p>MENTION PROPN HASHTAG.</p>
        <p>Additional features for the classification of
subjective and positive or negative tweets are listed in
new tag
PART
EMO
INTJ
SYM
CONJ
SCONJ</p>
        <p>type
particle
emoticon
interjection</p>
        <p>symbol
coordinating conjunction
subordinating conjunction
examples</p>
        <p>’s
:DD, :-)))), u u
ah, boh, oddioo</p>
        <p>%, &amp;, &lt;
ebbene, ma, oppure
nonostante, mentre, come
Table 5, with BOOL meaning boolean feature and
NUM numeric feature (they correspond to
absolute frequencies). The features have been selected
thinking about their communicative function: a1
for example is useful because there is a tendency to
communicate opinionated content in discussions
with other users while we choose a2 because
neutral tweets often advertise newspapers’ articles in a
non opinionated way including the link at the end
of the tweet, but the URL is significant in other
positions a6, a6 1. Together with emoticons,
interjections are items that signal the presence of
opinionated content. For the kind of asynchronous
communication that characterize them, tweets can
contain questions that don’t expect an answer, that
are rethorical a8 1, thus making the tweet
opinionanted.
2.2</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-6">
        <title>Results and Discussion</title>
        <p>The system adopts the Weka2 library that allows
experiments with different classifiers. Due to
better performance of Naive Bayes (default settings,
10- fold cross validation) with respect to Support
Vector Machine we choose the first; best
performances were obtained with MSTRU4 considering
frequencies of unigrams and bigrams of PoS as
features. We took part to Sentipolc2016 only with
a constrained run, choosing slightly different set of
features for subjectivity and polarity evaluation.</p>
        <p>
          Adding the additional features in Table 5 we
selected for Task 1 a subset of them after an ablation
test. More specifically, the feature set 1 (FS1 in
Table 7) is composed by features a1, a2, a4, a4 1,
a6, a6 1, a7, a7 1, a8 1, a9. The system
performance is reported in terms of F-score, according to
the measure adopted by the task organizers
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">(Barbieri et al., 2016)</xref>
          . Results on the training data look
promising for Task 1, less promising for Task 2
(see Table 8). We didn’t succeed in optimising
features for the polarity detection sub-task. The
2http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/
performance on the training set was not
satisfying but nevertheless we decided to submit results
for Task 2 on test set using all the features. In
Table 9 the official results submitted for the
competition are reported. Samskara was first among
the constrained systems for subjectivity
classification, while not surprisingly the performance in
Task 2 was bad. Results in Task 2 can be explained
by the absence in the system of structural features
that are meaningful for the positive-negative
distinctions or by the unsuitability of such a minimal
approach for the task. It is possible that richer
semantic features are necessary for the detection and
the classification of polarity and polarised lexical
items should be revised, for example,
representing each lemma as a sentiment specific word
embedding (SSWE) encoding sentiment information
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">(Tang et al., 2014)</xref>
          .
        </p>
        <p>With Samskara we prove that classification of
tweets should take into account structural
properties of content on social media, especially
properties that have communicative and pragmatic
functions. The minimal features we selected for
Samskara were successful for the classification of
subjective Italian tweets. The system is based on a
minimal set of features that are easy to retrieve and
tag; the classification system is efficient and fast
for Task 1 and as such it is promising for real-time
processing of big data stream.
features
a1
a2
a3
a3 1
a4
a4 1
a5
a5 1
a6
a6 1
a7
a7 1
a8 1
a8 2
a9
a10
description
the tweet starts with MENTION
the tweet ends with a LINK
the tweet has PoS of type PUNCT
number of PoS of type PUNCT in each tweet
the tweet has PoS of type VERYNEG
number of PoS of type VERYNEG in each tweet
the tweet has PoS of type INTJ
number of PoS of type INTJ in each tweet
the tweet has PoS of type URL
number of PoS of type URL in each tweet
the tweet has PoS of type EMOTICON
number of PoS of type EMOTICON in each tweet
the tweet contains a question
the tweet contains a question at the end
the tweet contains two consecutive exclamation marks (’!!’)
the tweets contains connectives such as anzitutto,
comunque, dapprima, del resto</p>
        <p>Cutugno, Simonetta Montemagni, Malvina
Nissim, Viviana Patti, Giovanni Semeraro and Rachele
Sprugnoli, editors, Proceedings of Third Italian
Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-it
2016) &amp; Fifth Evaluation Campaign of Natural
Language Processing and Speech Tools for Italian. Final
Workshop (EVALITA 2016) Associazione Italiana di</p>
        <p>Linguistica Computazionale (AILC).</p>
        <p>Bosco, Cristina and Tamburini, Fabio and Bolioli,
Andrea and Mazzei, Alessandro. 2016. Overview
of the EVALITA 2016 Part Of Speech on
TWitter for ITAlian Task. In Pierpaolo Basile, Anna
Corazza, Franco Cutugno, Simonetta Montemagni,
Malvina Nissim, Viviana Patti, Giovanni
Semeraro and Rachele Sprugnoli, editors, Proceedings of
Third Italian Conference on Computational
Linguistics (CLiC-it 2016) &amp; Fifth Evaluation Campaign
of Natural Language Processing and Speech Tools
for Italian. Final Workshop (EVALITA 2016)
Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Computazionale
(AILC).</p>
        <p>Shelly Dews and Ellen Winner. 1995. Muting the
meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and</p>
        <p>Symbolic Activity, 10(1):319.</p>
        <p>Bing Liu and Lei Zhang. 2012. A Survey of Opinion
Mining and Sentiment Analysis. In C. C. Aggarwal
&amp; C. Zhai (Eds.) Mining Text Data, pp. 415–463,</p>
        <p>US: Springer.</p>
        <p>James W. Pennebaker, Ryan L. Boyd, Kayla Jordan,
and Kate Blackburn. 2015. The Development and</p>
        <p>Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015.</p>
        <p>Helmut Schmid. 1997. Probabilistic Part-of-Speech
Tagging Using Decision Trees. In New Methods in</p>
        <p>Language Processing, UCL Press, pp. 154-164.</p>
        <p>Efstathios Stamatatos. 2009. A Survey of Modern
Authorship Attribution Methods. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Stefano</given-names>
            <surname>Baccianella</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Andrea</given-names>
            <surname>Esuli</surname>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Fabrizio</given-names>
            <surname>Sebastian</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2010</year>
          .
          <article-title>SentiWordNet 3.0: An Enhanced Lexical Resource for Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10).</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Barbieri</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Francesco and Basile, Valerio and Croce, Danilo and Nissim, Malvina and Novielli, Nicole and Patti, Viviana.
          <year>2016</year>
          .
          <article-title>Overview of the EVALITA 2016 SENTiment POLarity Classification Task</article-title>
          . In Pierpaolo Basile, Anna Corazza, Franco Stone,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Philip J.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>1966</year>
          .
          <article-title>The General Inquirer: A Computer Approach to Content Analysis</article-title>
          . The MIT Press.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Duyu</given-names>
            <surname>Tang</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Furu Wei, Nan Yang,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ming Zhou</surname>
            , Ting Liu and
            <given-names>Bing</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Qin</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2014</year>
          .
          <article-title>Learning Sentiment-Specific Word Embedding for Twitter Sentiment Classification In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics</article-title>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>