IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0263449.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tweet sentiment quantification: An experimental re-evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Alejandro Moreo
  • Fabrizio Sebastiani

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alejandro Moreo & Fabrizio Sebastiani, 2022. "Tweet sentiment quantification: An experimental re-evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263449
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263449
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263449
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0263449&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0263449?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0263449. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.