Tweet sentiment quantification: An experimental re-evaluation

Alejandro Moreo and Fabrizio Sebastiani

PLOS ONE, 2022, vol. 17, issue 9, 1-23

Abstract: Sentiment quantification is the task of training, by means of supervised learning, estimators of the relative frequency (also called “prevalence”) of sentiment-related classes (such as Positive, Neutral, Negative) in a sample of unlabelled texts. This task is especially important when these texts are tweets, since the final goal of most sentiment classification efforts carried out on Twitter data is actually quantification (and not the classification of individual tweets). It is well-known that solving quantification by means of “classify and count” (i.e., by classifying all unlabelled items by means of a standard classifier and counting the items that have been assigned to a given class) is less than optimal in terms of accuracy, and that more accurate quantification methods exist. Gao and Sebastiani 2016 carried out a systematic comparison of quantification methods on the task of tweet sentiment quantification. In hindsight, we observe that the experimentation carried out in that work was weak, and that the reliability of the conclusions that were drawn from the results is thus questionable. We here re-evaluate those quantification methods (plus a few more modern ones) on exactly the same datasets, this time following a now consolidated and robust experimental protocol (which also involves simulating the presence, in the test data, of class prevalence values very different from those of the training set). This experimental protocol (even without counting the newly added methods) involves a number of experiments 5,775 times larger than that of the original study. Due to the above-mentioned presence, in the test data, of samples characterised by class prevalence values very different from those of the training set, the results of our experiments are dramatically different from those obtained by Gao and Sebastiani, and provide a different, much more solid understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of different sentiment quantification methods.

Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263449 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 63449&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0263449

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263449

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().