Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Towards Semantic Integration of Opinions: Unified Opinion Concepts Ontology and Extraction Task

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the Unified Opinion Concepts (UOC) ontology, unifies ten opinion facets into a single extraction schema, and reports GPT-4o baseline of 59.33% F1 on the new UOCE task.

desk verdict A genuinely useful ontology and task definition, but the benchmark's missing reliability statistics and invalid SOTA comparison mean the empirical claims don't hold up yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18703 v1 pith:CXPYLOEE submitted 2025-05-24 cs.CL

Gaurav Negi , Dhairya Dalal , Omnia Zayed , Paul Buitelaar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords opinionminingontologyaspect-basedsentimentanalysisstructuredextractionlargelanguagemodelssemanticwebqualifierandreason
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Opinion mining is split across competing task formulations, each capturing only part of what an opinion contains. This paper argues that these formulations can be unified into a single structured schema, the Unified Opinion Concepts (UOC) ontology, whose ten components cover the opinion target, aspect, sentiment expression, polarity and intensity, opinion holder, qualifier, and reason. To show the schema is usable, the paper defines the Unified Opinion Concept Extraction (UOCE) task, extends a gold-standard dataset with the missing labels, and reports baseline results with large language models. The best baseline reaches 59.33% component-level F1, which the paper reads as evidence that the task is feasible but not yet solved.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the UOC ontology itself: an alignment table maps Marl concepts and NLP task facets to the ten unified components, and object properties such as hasTarget, hasReason, and hasQualifier relate them. The UOCE task instantiates this ontology as an extraction problem, and the component-level exact-match metric, which performs one-to-one matching that credits partial tuple agreement, makes the benchmark measurable. The prompt setup, comparing natural-language descriptions with ontology serializations such as JSON-LD, is the testbed for whether large language models can exploit the schema.

What would settle it

Have independent annotators re-label the qualifier and reason spans in the same 100 sentences and compute agreement; if agreement is low, the reported benchmark scores and model comparisons are not anchored to a reproducible ground truth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that the opinion facets scattered across NLP task formulations and the descriptive structure of the Marl semantic-web ontology can be aligned into one coherent ontology. The resulting UOC schema represents an opinion as a ten-part tuple: aspect term, aspect category, target entity, sentiment expression, sentiment polarity, sentiment intensity, holder span, holder entity, qualifier, and reason. The paper claims that this formalizes the semantic structure of opinions that had previously been expressed implicitly and scattered across the opinion-mining literature. It then operationalizes the schema as an extraction task and shows that prompted general-purpose language models, without task-specific training, can partially extract these tuples; the best configuration scores 59.33% component-level F1, and the ontology-serialized prompts are more stable across models than natural-language prompts.

Load-bearing premise

The gold labels for the evaluation dataset were agreed by three of the authors without any reported inter-annotator agreement, so the consistency of the newly introduced qualifier and reason labels is assumed rather than measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adopting UOC lets systems from different opinion-mining formulations map their outputs into one common schema, making direct comparison possible without reformatting.
  • The component-level exact-match metric ensures that partially correct extractions receive partial credit, where tuple-level exact match would score them as zero.
  • The best generative baseline reaches 59.33% F1, establishing the task as feasible but unsolved and leaving room for specialized training or decoding methods.
  • Because no existing dataset annotates qualifiers or reasons, progress on the full UOCE task depends on creating new annotations or learning schemes for those components.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If UOC becomes a shared representation, extracted opinions can be instantiated as knowledge graphs, enabling queries such as 'which reviewers disliked battery life for heavy-computation users, and for what reason?'
  • The paper's corpus is only 100 sentences, so transfer learning or synthetic data generation for qualifiers and reasons is an obvious next test the authors did not run.
  • The lower variance of ontology-serialized prompts suggests that structured symbolic prompts may stabilise generative extraction; that hypothesis could be tested across other structured-prediction tasks.
  • The unmeasured reliability of qualifier and reason labels means the first priority for the benchmark is an independent annotation study, before the model ranking is taken as settled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Unified Opinion Concepts (UOC) ontology, which aligns opinion facets from NLP opinion-mining tasks and the Semantic-Web-oriented Marl ontology into ten components: aspect term, aspect category, target entity, sentiment expression, sentiment polarity, sentiment intensity, holder span, holder entity, qualifier, and reason. On this basis it defines the Unified Opinion Concept Extraction (UOCE) task as predicting ten-slot opinion tuples, constructs a 100-sentence evaluation benchmark by extending MEMD-ABSA (ME23) with qualifier, reason, sentiment intensity, and holder annotations, and proposes a component-level exact-match metric with one-to-one tuple alignment. Baseline experiments use eight open-weight or API-based LLMs under natural-language and ontology-serialized prompts; the best reported component-level F1 is 59.33% (GPT-4o). The paper also compares these baselines with prior ASTE and ACOS systems on mapped subsets.

Significance. The UOC ontology is a plausible and useful consolidation of opinion structures that have been scattered across ABSA, structured sentiment analysis, and the Marl ontology; the derivation is grounded in prior published frameworks rather than fitted to the authors' own outputs, and I did not find a circular step. The UOCE task and the component-level metric are sensible extensions of the opinion-mining literature, and the prompt-variation study across ontology serializations is a useful practical contribution. The GitHub release of code and data supports reproducibility. However, the empirical claims are weakened by the very small evaluation set, the absence of annotation reliability measurement, and the under-specified comparison with ASTE/ACOS systems; these issues currently prevent the benchmark from being a reliable evidence source for the feasibility claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3.2, Table 3] The gold labels were finalized by consensus among three expert annotators, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported for any component, including the newly added qualifier, reason, sentiment intensity, and holder labels. This is load-bearing because Section 7 concedes that qualifier and reason spans are long and boundary-sensitive, and Table 3 shows they occur in only 31/134 and 46/134 opinions respectively; a small number of unstable labels can materially change the component-level F1 values in Table 4 and even the model ordering. I request per-component agreement measures (e.g., token-level F1 for span components and Cohen's kappa for the discrete polarity/intensity labels), plus a statement of the annotation guidelines used, before the reported F1 scores can be interpreted as benchmark evidence.
  2. [§5.1, Table 5] The comparison with GEN-SCL-NAT and MVP is not a valid head-to-head evaluation as presented. Those systems were trained on ACOS/ASTE datasets, do not output all ten UOCE components, and were not adapted to the UOCE prompt and output format; their low UOCE-row scores may reflect task mismatch rather than task difficulty. Moreover, the experimental setup is underspecified: it is not stated which test sets were used for the ASTE and ACOS rows, how the UOCE outputs were mapped to the shorter tuples, or whether the prompts were identical across tasks. The claim that 'the baseline methods outperform the state-of-the-art ASTE and ACOS tasks' is therefore unsupported. Please either remove this comparison, restrict it to per-component F1 on the overlapping components with a clearly specified protocol, or retrain/report adapted models under matched conditions.
  3. [§5.2, Table 4] The prompt-format and model-comparison conclusions rest on single runs with no variance estimate across repeated executions. The standard deviations in Table 4 are computed across prompt-order variants, not across repeated runs, so they do not quantify sampling variability; for example, the difference between Gemma2 27B (55.99) and Gemma2 9B (56.64) is within the reported cross-prompt σ, yet Section 5.2 concludes that larger models perform better. Please report confidence intervals or repeated-run statistics, or explicitly label the ordering as descriptive rather than inferential.
  4. [§7, §4.2] The paper acknowledges that exact-match scoring is too strict for long qualifier and reason spans, but all headline results use this metric. Because the new benchmark is the only empirical evidence for UOCE feasibility, the absence of a relaxed span-level metric or per-component error analysis makes it difficult to separate annotation-boundary noise from genuine model failure. I recommend reporting per-component F1 and a relaxed match (e.g., partial token overlap or a similarity threshold) for qualifier and reason, so that the 59.33% headline can be interpreted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (2)] The definition of f uses ogi,k in the denominator and in the intersection, but the second tuple in the pair is ogi,j; the index should be corrected to j.
  2. [§5.1, Table 5] The text says 'The comparison results (Table 7)' but the relevant table is Table 5; the appendix contains a separate Table 7 with tuple-level results. Please fix the cross-reference.
  3. [§4.3.2] The dataset is referred to as 'M E23' in the prose and tables; use the full name MEMD-ABSA (Cai et al., 2023) at least at first mention and keep the abbreviation consistent.
  4. [Table 2] The table lists two rows labelled 'SR16' with different checkmark patterns; clarify whether these denote different SemEval-2016 subtasks (e.g., Laptop vs. Restaurant) and distinguish them in the table.
  5. [Table 1, §3.1] Opinion Time is listed as 'NA' in the alignment table but is not discussed in the ontology section or in the limitations; please state explicitly whether time is intentionally excluded from the UOCE tuple.
  6. [§4.2] The set notation around Ai is hard to follow: define Ogi and Oei as sets of tuples with the same indexing convention as Eq. (1), and clarify the matching procedure for cases with unequal numbers of gold and predicted tuples.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the ontology, task, dataset, and baselines form a standard definitional chain with no fitted inputs relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a conceptual synthesis rather than an empirical derivation. UOC is constructed by aligning the Marl ontology (Westerski et al., 2011) with opinion facets from NLP frameworks (Section 3, Table 1), building on external sources such as Liu and Zhang (2012) and Liu (2017). The UOCE task is then defined from the UOC schema (Section 4.1), the evaluation dataset is annotated according to that same schema (Section 4.3.2), and the metrics measure adherence to UOC semantics (Section 4.2). This is standard benchmark construction: the gold labels operationalize the ontology, and the baseline F1 scores (Section 5) measure model performance against that operationalization. The paper does not present the benchmark as evidence that the ontology is empirically true; the ontology's contribution is framed as formalization, and the benchmark is explicitly scoped as an evaluation instrument. Section 7 states that the evaluation dataset is 'helpful for evaluation purposes but is insufficient in size to train a practical system,' confirming that the dataset is not used to derive the ontology. No parameter is fitted to data and then predicted on a closely related quantity, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation: the cited prior works involving the authors, such as Buitelaar et al. (2013), provide background on Marl but are not the source of UOC's content. The absence of inter-annotator agreement for the newly added qualifier, reason, and holder labels (Section 4.3.2) is a measurement-reliability concern that affects the interpretability of the benchmark scores, but it is not circularity because the labels are not derived from model outputs or from the paper's own conclusions. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are fitted; the ontology is a conceptual alignment. The main assumptions are domain modeling choices: the ten-component decomposition, explicit-only reasons, and the three-level intensity scale. No new physical or symbolic entities are postulated beyond the ontology classes, which are derived from prior literature (Liu 2017, Marl).

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption An opinion can be completely decomposed into the ten UOC components (at, ac, te, se, sp, si, hs, he, q, r).
    Section 4.1 defines the tuple; this decomposition is based on Liu (2017) and Marl, but no argument proves exhaustiveness.
  • domain assumption Only explicit reasons stated in the text are considered; implied reasons are excluded.
    Section 3.1 states this restriction, which bounds the task but also limits the ontology's expressivity.
  • domain assumption Sentiment intensity is discretized into weak, average, strong.
    Section 3.1 defines this ordinal scale; it is a design choice, not empirically derived.
  • standard math The maximum-weight bipartite matching in the component-level metric gives the correct alignment.
    Section 4.2 uses argmax matching; this is standard and not proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption Annotator consensus among three authors is sufficient to establish gold labels.
    Section 4.3.2 reports consensus but no inter-annotator agreement, so label quality is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Semantic Integration of Opinions: Unified Opinion Concepts Ontology and Extraction Task." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CXPYLOEE

@misc{pith2026250518703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Semantic Integration of Opinions: Unified Opinion Concepts Ontology and Extraction Task},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CXPYLOEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18703}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces the Unified Opinion Concepts (UOC) ontology to integrate opinions within their semantic context. The UOC ontology bridges the gap between the semantic representation of opinion across different formulations. It is a unified conceptualisation based on the facets of opinions studied extensively in NLP and semantic structures described through symbolic descriptions. We further propose the Unified Opinion Concept Extraction (UOCE) task of extracting opinions from the text with enhanced expressivity. Additionally, we provide a manually extended and re-annotated evaluation dataset for this task and tailored evaluation metrics to assess the adherence of extracted opinions to UOC semantics. Finally, we establish baseline performance for the UOCE task using state-of-the-art generative models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structured Sentiment Analysis ABSA and structured sentiment analysis overlap significantly in extracting specific opinion facets2 . None of the formulations fully incorporate all opin￾ion facets proposed by Liu (2017), which reduces the expressiveness and granularity of the extracted opinions. The example above shows that the opin￾ion is valid for specific individuals or groups en￾gaged in " doing heavy computations… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Unified Opinions Concepts (UOC) Ontology Diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. UOC Sentiment extracted from: "I had hoped for better battery life , as it had only about 2- 1/2 hours doing heavy computations (8 threads using 100 % of the CPU)" Target: This class encapsulates the subjective infor￾mation on which an opinion is expressed. It repre￾sents a composite concept comprising fine-grained components that collectively define the Aspect and Entity implicated in the opinion. This conceptual￾i… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates an instance of the Target class, its constituents, and their relationships. It addresses the semantic formulation for extracting the multiple facets of an opinion’s target. The object property is￾ExpressedOnTarget describes its relationship with Opinion cla…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Temporal Knowledge-Base Creation for Fine-Grained Opinion Analysis with Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A DSPy-based LLM annotation pipeline creates a temporal fine-grained opinion knowledge base from StockTwits and Politifact text, with best F1 scores of 45.91 to 59.92 on source benchmark tests.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Joanna Baran and Jan Kocon. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW58026.2022.00059 Linguistic knowledge application to neuro-symbolic transformers in sentiment analysis . In IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, ICDM 2022 - Workshops, Orlando, FL, USA, November 28 - Dec. 1, 2022 , pages 395--402. IEEE

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Jeremy Barnes, Robin Kurtz, Stephan Oepen, Lilja vrelid, and Erik Velldal. 2021 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.263 Structured sentiment analysis as dependency graph parsing . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.263 2021

  5. [5]

    Jeremy Barnes, Laura Oberl \" a nder, Enrica Troiano, Andrey Kutuzov, Jan Buchmann, Rodrigo Agerri, Lilja vrelid, and Erik Velldal. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2022.SEMEVAL-1.180 Semeval 2022 task 10: Structured sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@NAACL 2022, Seattle, Washington, Uni...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.semeval-1.180 2022

  6. [6]

    Jeremy Barnes, Lilja vrelid, and Erik Velldal. 2021 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.5 If you ' ve got it, flaunt it: Making the most of fine-grained sentiment annotations . In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 49--62, Online. Association for Comput...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.5 2021

  7. [7]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gr...

    2020

  8. [8]

    Fernando S \' a nchez - Rada, and Carlo Strapparava

    Paul Buitelaar, Mihael Arcan, Carlos Angel Iglesias, J. Fernando S \' a nchez - Rada, and Carlo Strapparava. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/W13-5502/ Linguistic linked data for sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linked Data in Linguistics, LDL 2013: Representing and linking lexicons, terminologies and other language data, Pisa, Ita...

    work page 2013

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Hongjie Cai, Nan Song, Zengzhi Wang, Qiming Xie, Qiankun Zhao, Ke Li, Siwei Wu, Shijie Liu, Jianfei Yu, and Rui Xia. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2306.16956 MEMD-ABSA: A multi-element multi-domain dataset for aspect-based sentiment analysis . CoRR, abs/2306.16956

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hongjie Cai, Rui Xia, and Jianfei Yu. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.29 Aspect-category-opinion-sentiment quadruple extraction with implicit aspects and opinions . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and t...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S. Yu. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1145/1341531.1341561 A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Web Data Mining, WSDM 2008, Palo Alto, California, USA, February 11-12...

    2008

  4. [12]

    Zhibin Gou, Qingyan Guo, and Yujiu Yang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.240 M v P : Multi-view prompting improves aspect sentiment tuple prediction . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pap...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Kai He, Rui Mao, Tieliang Gong, Chen Li, and Erik Cambria. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2022.3202831 Meta-based self-training and re-weighting for aspect-based sentiment analysis . IEEE Trans. Affect. Comput. , 14(3):1731--1742

    2023

  6. [14]

    Minqing Hu and Bing Liu. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1145/1014052.1014073 Mining and summarizing customer reviews . In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Seattle, Washington, USA, August 22-25, 2004 , pages 168--177. ACM

    2004

  7. [15]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, L \' e lio Renard Lavaud, Marie - Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, ...

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Bour, Guillaume Lample, L \' e lio Renard Lavaud, Lucile Saulnier, Marie...

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Qingnan Jiang, Lei Chen, Ruifeng Xu, Xiang Ao, and Min Yang. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/D19-1654 A challenge dataset and effective models for aspect-based sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and ...

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Jan Kocon, Joanna Baran, Marcin Gruza, Arkadiusz Janz, Michal Kajstura, Przemyslaw Kazienko, Wojciech Korczynski, Piotr Milkowski, Maciej Piasecki, and Joanna Szolomicka. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08754-7\_69 Neuro-symbolic models for sentiment analysis . In Comp...

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Xin Li, Lidong Bing, Piji Li, Wai Lam, and Zhimou Yang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/583 Aspect term extraction with history attention and selective transformation . In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJ...

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Bing Liu. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55394-8_2 Many Facets of Sentiment Analysis . In Erik Cambria, Dipankar Das, Sivaji Bandyopadhyay, and Antonio Feraco, editors, A Practical Guide to Sentiment Analysis , pages 11--39. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Bing Liu and Lei Zhang. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3223-4_13 A Survey of Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis . In Charu C. Aggarwal and ChengXiang Zhai, editors, Mining Text Data , pages 415--463. Springer US, Boston, MA

    2012 doi

  14. [22]

    Kang Liu, Heng Li Xu, Yang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2013. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI13/paper/view/6795 Opinion target extraction using partially-supervised word alignment model . In IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial I...

    2013

  15. [23]

    Dehong Ma, Sujian Li, and Houfeng Wang. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-1504 Joint learning for targeted sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4737--4742, Brussels, Belgium. Association for C...

    2018 doi

  16. [25]

    Macedo Maia, Siegfried Handschuh, Andr\' e Freitas, Brian Davis, Ross McDermott, Manel Zarrouk, and Alexandra Balahur. 2018 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3192301 Www'18 open challenge: Financial opinion mining and question answering . In Companion Proceedings of the The ...

    2018

  17. [26]

    Mamta and Asif Ekbal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28244-7\_43 Service is good, very good or excellent? towards aspect based sentiment intensity analysis . In Advances in Information Retrieval - 45th European Conference on Information Retrieval, ECIR 2023, Dublin, I...

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivi \` e re, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, L \' e onard Hussenot, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Adam Roberts, Aditya Barua, Alex Botev, Alex Castro - Ros, Ambrose ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    OpenAI. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.08774 GPT-4 technical report . CoRR, abs/2303.08774

    2023 doi arXiv

  20. [29]

    Bo Pang, Lillian Lee, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. 2002. https://doi.org/10.3115/1118693.1118704 Thumbs up? sentiment classification using machine learning techniques . In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing - Volume 10, EM...

    2002

  21. [30]

    Joseph Peper and Lu Wang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.451 Generative aspect-based sentiment analysis with contrastive learning and expressive structure . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 6089--6095, Abu D...

    2022 doi

  22. [31]

    Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Suresh Manandhar, Mohammad AL-Smadi, Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub, Yanyan Zhao, Bing Qin, Orph \'e e De Clercq, V \'e ronique Hoste, Marianna Apidianaki, Xavier Tannier, Natalia Loukachevitch, Evgeniy Kotelnikov, N...

    2016 doi

  23. [32]

    Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Suresh Manandhar, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2015. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S15-2082 S em E val-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation ( S em ...

    2015 doi

  24. [33]

    Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/s14-2004 Semeval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Semantic Eval...

    2014 doi

  25. [34]

    Guang Qiu, Bing Liu, Jiajun Bu, and Chun Chen. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli\_a\_00034 Opinion word expansion and target extraction through double propagation . Comput. Linguistics, 37(1):9--27

    2011 doi

  26. [35]

    Egil R nningstad, Erik Velldal, and Lilja vrelid. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.589 Entity-level sentiment analysis ( ELSA ): An exploratory task survey . In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6773--6783, Gyeongj...

    2022

  27. [36]

    Fernando S \' a nchez - Rada, Carlos Angel Iglesias, Ignacio Corcuera, and Oscar Araque

    J. Fernando S \' a nchez - Rada, Carlos Angel Iglesias, Ignacio Corcuera, and Oscar Araque. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/DSAA.2016.79 Senpy: A pragmatic linked sentiment analysis framework . In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics, DSAA 20...

    2016 doi

  28. [37]

    Rylan Schaeffer, Brando Miranda, and Sanmi Koyejo. 2023. http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2023/hash/adc98a266f45005c403b8311ca7e8bd7-Abstract-Conference.html Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems ...

    2023

  29. [38]

    Kim Schouten and Flavius Frasincar. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4\_39 Ontology-driven sentiment analysis of product and service aspects . In The Semantic Web - 15th International Conference, ESWC 2018, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 3-7, 2018, Proceedings , v...

    2018 doi

  30. [39]

    Cigdem Toprak, Niklas Jakob, and Iryna Gurevych. 2010. https://aclanthology.org/P10-1059/ Sentence and expression level annotation of opinions in user-generated discourse . In ACL 2010, Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Ju...

    2010

  31. [40]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie - Anne Lachaux, Timoth \' e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \` e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aur \' e lien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. https://doi.org/10.485...

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [41]

    Wenya Wang, Sinno Jialin Pan, Daniel Dahlmeier, and Xiaokui Xiao. 2017. http://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI17/paper/view/14441 Coupled multi-layer attentions for co-extraction of aspect and opinion terms . In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial In...

    2017

  33. [42]

    Adam Westerski, Carlos Angel Iglesias, and Fernando Tapia Rico. 2011. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-830/sdow2011\_paper\_2.pdf Linked opinions: Describing sentiments on the structured web of data . In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Social Data on the Web, SDoW@ISWC...

    2011

  34. [43]

    Chao Wu, Qingyu Xiong, Hualing Yi, Yang Yu, Qiwu Zhu, Min Gao, and Jie Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107073 Multiple-element joint detection for aspect-based sentiment analysis . Knowl. Based Syst., 223:107073

    2021

  35. [44]

    Zhen Wu, Chengcan Ying, Fei Zhao, Zhifang Fan, Xinyu Dai, and Rui Xia. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04640 Grid tagging scheme for aspect-oriented fine-grained opinion extraction . CoRR, abs/2010.04640

    2020 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Haoliang Xiong, Zehao Yan, Chuhan Wu, Guojun Lu, Shiguan Pang, Yun Xue, and Qianhua Cai. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-023-01831-8 Bart-based contrastive and retrospective network for aspect-category-opinion-sentiment quadruple extraction . Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern.,...

    2023 doi

  37. [46]

    Lu Xu, Hao Li, Wei Lu, and Lidong Bing. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.183 Position-aware tagging for aspect sentiment triplet extraction . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2020, Online, Novembe...

    2020 doi

  38. [47]

    Chen Zhang, Qiuchi Li, Dawei Song, and Benyou Wang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.72 A multi-task learning framework for opinion triplet extraction . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, Online Event, 16-20 November ...

    2020 doi

  39. [48]

    Wenxuan Zhang, Xin Li, Yang Deng, Lidong Bing, and Wai Lam. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-short.64 Towards generative aspect-based sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th Internat...

    2021 doi

  40. [49]

    Xulang Zhang, Rui Mao, Kai He, and Erik Cambria. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-EMNLP.587 Neuro-symbolic sentiment analysis with dynamic word sense disambiguation . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6...

    2023 doi

  41. [50]

    Li Zhuang, Feng Jing, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1145/1183614.1183625 Movie review mining and summarization . In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM CIKM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA, November 6-11, 2006 , pa...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.