1 / 71

Word Sense and Subjectivity

Word Sense and Subjectivity. Jan Wiebe Rada Mihalcea University of Pittsburgh University of North Texas. Introduction. Growing interest in the automatic extraction of opinions, emotions , and sentiments in text (subjectivity).

dixie
Télécharger la présentation

Word Sense and Subjectivity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Word Sense and Subjectivity Jan Wiebe Rada Mihalcea University of Pittsburgh University of North Texas

  2. Introduction • Growing interest in the automatic extraction of opinions,emotions, and sentiments in text (subjectivity)

  3. Subjectivity Analysis: Applications • Opinion-oriented question answering:How do the Chinese regard the human rights record of the United States? • Product review mining:What features of the ThinkPad T43 do customers like and which do they dislike? • Review classification:Is a review positive or negative toward the movie? • Tracking emotions toward topics over time:Is anger ratcheting up or cooling down toward an issue or event? • Etc.

  4. Introduction • Continuing interest in word sense • Sense annotated resources being developed for many languages • www.globalwordnet.org • Active participation in evaluations such as SENSEVAL

  5. Word Sense and Subjectivity • Though both are concerned with text meaning, they have mainly been investigated independently

  6. S O Subjectivity Labels on Senses Alarm, dismay, consternation – (fear resulting from the awareness of danger) Alarm, warning device, alarm system – (a device that signals the occurrence of some undesirable event)

  7. S O Subjectivity Labels on Senses Interest, involvement -- (a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something; "an interest in music") Interest -- (a fixed charge for borrowing money; usually a percentage of the amount borrowed; "how much interest do you pay on your mortgage?")

  8. He spins a riveting plot which grabs and holds the reader’s interest. Sense 4 Sense 1? Sense 4 “a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something” S Sense 1“a fixed charge for borrowing money” O WSD System Sense 1 Sense 4? The notes do not pay interest. WSD using Subjectivity Tagging

  9. WSD using Subjectivity Tagging He spins a riveting plot which grabs and holds the reader’s interest. S Sense 4 Sense 1? Sense 4 “a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something” S Sense 1“a fixed charge for borrowing money” O Subjectivity Classifier WSD System Sense 1 Sense 4? O The notes do not pay interest.

  10. WSD using Subjectivity Tagging He spins a riveting plot which grabs and holds the reader’s interest. S Sense 4 Sense 1? Sense 4 “a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something” S Sense 1“a fixed charge for borrowing money” O Subjectivity Classifier WSD System Sense 1 Sense 4? O The notes do not pay interest.

  11. Subjectivity Tagging using WSD Subjectivity Classifier He spins a riveting plot which grabs and holds the reader’s interest. S O? O S? The notes do not pay interest.

  12. S Sense 4 “a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something” OSense 1“a fixed charge for borrowing money” Subjectivity Tagging using WSD Subjectivity Classifier He spins a riveting plot which grabs and holds the reader’s interest. S O? Sense 4 WSD System O S? Sense 1 The notes do not pay interest.

  13. S Sense 4 “a sense of concern with and curiosity about someone or something” OSense 1“a fixed charge for borrowing money” Subjectivity Tagging using WSD Subjectivity Classifier He spins a riveting plot which grabs and holds the reader’s interest. S O? Sense 4 WSD System O S? Sense 1 The notes do not pay interest

  14. Goals • Explore interactions between word sense and subjectivity • Can subjectivity labels be assigned to word senses? • Manually • Automatically • Can subjectivity analysis improve word sense disambiguation? • Can word sense disambiguation improve subjectivity analysis? Future work

  15. Outline • Motivation and Goals • Assigning Subjectivity Labels to Word Senses • Manually • Automatically • Word Sense Disambiguation using Automatic Subjectivity Analysis • Conclusions

  16. Prior Work on Subjectivity Tagging • Identifying words and phrases associated with subjectivity • Think ~ private state;Beautiful ~ positive sentiment • Hatzivassiloglou & McKeown 1997; Wiebe 2000; Kamps & Marx 2002; Turney 2002; Esuli & Sabastiani 2005; Etc • Subjectivity classification of sentences, clauses, phrases, or word instances in context • subjective/objective; positive/negative/neutral • Riloff & Wiebe 2003; Yu & Hatzivassiloglou 2003; Dave et al 2003; Hu & Liu 2004; Kim & Hovy 2004; Etc. • Here:subjectivity labels are applied toword senses

  17. Outline • Motivation and Goals • Assigning Subjectivity Labels to Word Senses • Manually • Automatically • Word Sense Disambiguation using Automatic Subjectivity Analysis • Conclusions

  18. Annotation Scheme • Assigning subjectivity labels toWordNet senses • S:subjective • O:objective • B:both

  19. S Annotators are given the synset and its hypernym Alarm, dismay, consternation – (fear resulting form the awareness of danger) • Fear, fearfulness, fright – (an emotion experiences in anticipation of some specific pain or danger (usually accompanied by a desire to flee or fight))

  20. Subjective Sense Definition • When the sense is used in a text or conversation, we expect it to express subjectivity, and we expect the phrase/sentence containing it to be subjective.

  21. Objective Senses: Observation • We don’tnecessarily expect phrases/sentences containing objective senses to be objective • Would you actually be stupid enough to pay that rate of interest? • Will someone shut that darn alarm off? • Subjective, but notdue tointerest or alarm

  22. Objective Sense Definition • When the sense is used in a text or conversation, we don’t expect it to express subjectivity and,if the phrase/sentence containing it issubjective, the subjectivity is due tosomething else.

  23. Senses that are Both • Covers both subjective and objective usages • Example: absorb, suck, imbibe, soak up, sop up, suck up, draw, take in, take up – (take in, alsometaphorically;“The sponge absorbs water well”;“She drew strength from the Minister’s Words”)

  24. Annotated Data • 64 words; 354 senses • Balanced subset [32 words; 138 senses]; 2 judges • The ambiguous nouns of the SENSEVAL-3 English Lexical Task [20 words; 117 senses]; 2 judges • [Mihalcea, Chklovski & Kilgarriff, 2004] • Others [12 words; 99 senses]; 1 judge

  25. Annotated Data: Agreement Study • 64 words; 354 senses • Balanced subset [32 words; 138 senses]; 2 judges • 16 words have both S and O senses • 16 words do not (8 only S and 8 only O) • All subsets balanced between nouns and verbs • Uncertain tags also permitted

  26. Inter-Annotator Agreement Results • Overall: • Kappa=0.74 • Percent Agreement=85.5%

  27. Inter-Annotator Agreement Results • Overall: • Kappa=0.74 • Percent Agreement=85.5% • Without the 12.3% cases when a judge is U: • Kappa=0.90 • Percent Agreement=95.0%

  28. Inter-Annotator Agreement Results • Overall: • Kappa=0.74 • Percent Agreement=85.5% • 16 words with S and O senses: Kappa=0.75 • 16 words with only S or O: Kappa=0.73 Comparable difficulty

  29. Inter-Annotator Agreement Results • 64 words; 354 senses • The ambiguous nouns of the SENSEVAL-3 English Lexical Task [20 words; 117 senses] 2 judges • U tags not permitted • Even so, Kappa=0.71

  30. Outline • Motivation and Goals • Assigning Subjectivity Labels to Word Senses • Manually • Automatically • Word Sense Disambiguation using Automatic Subjectivity Analysis • Conclusions

  31. Related Work • unsupervised word-sense ranking algorithm of [McCarthy et al 2004] • That task:approximate corpus frequencies of word senses • Our task: predict a word-sense property (subjectivity) • method for learning subjective adjectives of[Wiebe 2000] • That task:label words • Our task:label word senses

  32. Overview • Main idea: assess the subjectivity of a word sense based on information about the subjectivity of • a set of distributionally similar words • in a corpus annotated with subjective expressions

  33. MPQA Opinion Corpus • 10,000 sentences from the world press annotated for subjective expressions • [Wiebe at al., 2005] • www.cs.pitt.edu/mpqa

  34. Subjective Expressions • Subjective expressions: opinions, sentiments, speculations, etc. (private states)expressed in language

  35. Examples • His alarm grew. • The leaders roundly condemned the Iranian President’s verbal assault on Israel. • He would be quite a catch. • That doctor is a quack.

  36. Annotated Corpus (MPQA) Unannotated Corpus (BNC) Lin 1998 #insts(DSW) in SE - #insts(DSW) not in SE #insts (DSW) subj(w) = DSW = {dsw1, …, dswj} Preliminaries: subjectivity of word w

  37. Annotated Corpus (MPQA) DSW = {dsw1, …, dswj} Subjectivity of word w Unannotated Corpus (BNC) #insts(DSW) in SE - #insts(DSW) not in SE #insts (DSW) subj(w) = [-1, 1] [highly objective, highly subjective]

  38. Annotated Corpus (MPQA) dsw1inst1 dsw1inst2 dsw2inst1 Unannotated Corpus (BNC) +1 -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 subj(w) = = 1/3 3 DSW = {dsw1,dsw2} Subjectivity of word w

  39. Annotated Corpus (MPQA) dsw1inst1 dsw1inst2 dsw2inst1 +sim(wi,dsw1) - sim(wi,dsw1) + sim(wi,dsw2) subj(wi) = 2 * sim(wi,dsw1) + sim(wi,dsw2) Subjectivity of word sense wi Rather than 1, add or subtract sim(wi,dswj) +sim(wi,dsw1) [-1, 1] -sim(wi,dsw1) +sim(wi,dsw2)

  40. Method –Step 1 • Given word w • Find distributionally similar words [Lin 1998] • DSW = {dswj | j = 1 .. n} • Experiment with top 100 and 160

  41. Method –Step 2

  42. Method – Step 2 • Find the similarity between each word sense and each distributionally similar word • wnss can be any concept-based similarity measure between word senses • we use Jiang & Conrath 1997

  43. Method – Step 2 • Find the similarity between each word sense and each distributionally similar word • wnss can be any concept-based similarity measure between word senses • we use Jiang & Conrath 1997

  44. Method – Step 2 • Find the similarity between each word sense and each distributionally similar word • wnss can be any concept-based similarity measure between word senses • we use Jiang & Conrath 1997

  45. Method – Step 2 • Find the similarity between each word sense and each distributionally similar word • wnss can be any concept-based similarity measure between word senses • we use Jiang & Conrath 1997

  46. Method – Step 2 • Find the similarity between each word sense and each distributionally similar word • wnss can be any concept-based similarity measure between word senses • we use Jiang & Conrath 1997

  47. Method –Step 3 Input:word sense wi of word w DSW = {dswj | j = 1..n} sim(wi,dswj) MPQA Opinion Corpus Output:subjectivity score subj(wi)

  48. Method –Step 3 totalsim = #insts(dswj) * sim(wi,dswj) subj = 0 for each dswj in DSW: for each instance k in insts(dswj): if k is in a subjective expression: subj += sim(wi,dswj) else: subj -= sim(wi,dswj) subj(wi) = subj / totalsim

  49. Method – Optional Variation if k is in a subjective expression: subj += sim(wi,dswj) else: subj -= sim(wi,dswj) w1 dsw1 dsw2 dsw3 w2 dsw1 dsw2 dsw3 w3 dsw1 dsw2 dsw3 “Selected”

  50. Evaluation • Calculate subjscores for all word senses, and sort them • While 0 is a natural candidate for division between S and O, we perform the evaluation for different thresholds in [-1,+1] • Calculate the precision of the algorithm at different points of recall

More Related