skip to main content
10.1145/1645953.1646075acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A unified relevance model for opinion retrieval

Published:02 November 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

Representing the information need is the greatest challenge for opinion retrieval. Typical queries for opinion retrieval are composed of either just content words, or content words with a small number of cue "opinion" words. Both are inadequate for retrieving opinionated documents. In this paper, we develop a general formal framework--the opinion relevance model--to represent an information need for opinion retrieval. We explore a series of methods to automatically identify the most appropriate opinion words for query expansion, including using query independent sentiment resources. We also propose a relevance feedback-based approach to extract opinion words. Both query-independent and query-dependent methods can also be integrated into a more effective mixture relevance model. Finally, opinion retrieval experiments are presented for the Blog06 and COAE08 text collections. The results show that, significant improvements can always be obtained by this opinion relevance model whether sentiment resources are available or not.

References

  1. G. Amati, E. Ambrosi, M. Bianchi, C. Gaibisso, and G. Gambosi. FUB, IASI-CNR and University of Tor Vergata at TREC 2007 Blog Track. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2007), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C. Burges, T. Shaked, E. Renshaw, A. Lazier, M. Deeds, N. Hamilton,and G. Hullender. Learning to rank using gradient descent. In ICML '05: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 89--96, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. W. B. Croft, D. Metzler, and T. Strohman. Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice. Addison Wesley, 1 edition, February 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. K. Eguchi and V. Lavrenko. Sentiment retrieval using generative models. In EMNLP '06, Proceedings of 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 345--354, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Hannah, C. Macdonald, J. Peng, B. He, and I. Ounis. University of Glasgow at TREC 2007: Experiments in Blog and Enterprise Tracks with Terrier. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2007), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. V. Hatzivassiloglou and J. Wiebe. Effects of adjective orientation and gradability on sentence subjectivity. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-2000), 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. T. Joachims, H. Li, T.-Y. Liu, and C. Zhai. Learning to rank for information retrieval (LR4IR 2007). SIGIR Forum, 41(2):58--62, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1):79--86, 1951.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J. D. Lafferty and C. Zhai. Document language models, query models, and risk minimization for information retrieval. In SIGIR '01: Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 111--119, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. V. Lavrenko and W. B. Croft. Relevance-based language models. In SIGIR '01: Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 120--127, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. B. Liu, M. Hu, and J. Cheng. Opinion observer: Analyzing and comparing opinions on the web. In WWW '05: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C. Macdonald and I. Ounis. The TREC Blogs06 collection: creating and analysing a blog test collection. Technical Report TR-2006-224, University of Glasgow, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Macdonald and I. Ounis. Overview of the TREC-2007 Blog Track. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2007), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Q. Mei, X. Ling, M. Wondra, H. Su, and C. Zhai. Topic sentiment mixture: Modeling facets and opinions in weblogs. In WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. S.-H. Na, Y. Lee, S.-H. Nam, and J.-H. Lee. Improving opinion retrieval based on query-specific sentiment lexicon. In ECIR '09: Proceedings of the 31st annual European Conference on Information Retrieval, pages 734--738, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Oard, T. Elsayed, J. Wang, Y. Wu, P. Zhang, E. Abels, J. Lin, and D. Soergel. TREC-2006 at Maryland: Blog, Enterprise, Legal and QA Tracks. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2006), 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. I. Ounis, C. Macdonald, and I. Soboroff. On the TREC Blog Track. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. I. Ounis, C. Macdonald, and I. Soboroff. Overview of the TREC-2008 Blog Track. In Proceedings of the 16th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2008), 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. B. Pang and L. Lee. A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In ACL '04: Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 271--278, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. B. Pang and L. Lee. Seeing stars: Exploiting class relationships for sentiment categorization with respect to rating scales. In ACL '05: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 115--124, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. B. Pang and L. Lee. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1--2):1--135, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. J. M. Ponte and W. B. Croft. A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In SIGIR '98: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 275--281, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Taylor, H. Zaragoza, N. Craswell, S. Robertson, and C. Burges. Optimisation methods for ranking functions with multiple parameters. In CIKM '06: Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 585--593, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. P. D. Turney and M. L. Littman. Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 21(4):315--346, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. O. Vechtomova. Using subjective adjectives in opinion retrieval from blogs. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2007), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. Wiebe, T. Wilson, and C. Cardie. Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language. Language Resources and Evaluation (formerly Computers and the Humanities), 39(2/3):164--210, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. Zhai and J. Lafferty. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to information retrieval. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 22(2):179--214, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Zhang and X. Ye. A generation model to unify topic relevance and lexicon-based sentiment for opinion retrieval. In SIGIR '08: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 411--418, New York, NY, USA, 2008. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. W. Zhang and C. Yu. UIC at TREC 2007 Blog Track. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2007), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. Zhao, H. Xu, X. Huang, S. Tan, K. Liu, and Q. Zhang. Overview of Chinese Opinion Analysis Evaluation 2008. In Proceedings of the First Chinese Opinion Analysis Evaluation, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. G. Zhou, H. Joshi, and C. Bayrak. Topic categorization for relevancy and opinion detection. In Proceedings of the 15th Text REtrieval Conference (TREC 2007), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A unified relevance model for opinion retrieval

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CIKM '09: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management
      November 2009
      2162 pages
      ISBN:9781605585123
      DOI:10.1145/1645953

      Copyright © 2009 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 November 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,861of8,427submissions,22%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader