Abstract
What are the limits of automated Twitter sentiment classification? We analyze a large set of manually labeled tweets in different languages, use them as training data, and construct automated classification models. It turns out that the quality of classification models depends much more on the quality and size of training data than on the type of the model trained. Experimental results indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the performance of the top classification models. We quantify the quality of training data by applying various annotator agreement measures, and identify the weakest points of different datasets. We show that the model performance approaches the inter-annotator agreement when the size of the training set is sufficiently large. However, it is crucial to regularly monitor the self- and inter-annotator agreements since this improves the training datasets and consequently the model performance. Finally, we show that there is strong evidence that humans perceive the sentiment classes (negative, neutral, and positive) as ordered.
Introduction
Sentiment analysis is a form of shallow semantic analysis of texts. Its goal is to extract opinions, emotions or attitudes towards different objects of interest BIBREF0 , BIBREF1 . For example, one might be interested in consumers opinion about products, voters attitude towards political parties, or investors expectations about stocks. From the first approaches in 2000s, sentiment analysis gained considerable attention with massive growth of the web and social media. Different forms of textual information are becoming easily accessible (e.g., news, blogs, reviews, Facebook comments, Twitter posts, etc.), and different approaches to sentiment analysis were developed.
There are two prevailing approaches to large-scale sentiment analysis: (i) lexicon-based and (ii) machine learning. In the first case, the sentiment in the text is computed from the set of sentiment-bearing words identified in the text. In the second case, a sentiment classification model is constructed first, from a large set of sentiment labeled texts, and then applied to the stream of unlabelled texts. The model has the form of a function that maps features extracted from the text into sentiment labels (which typically have discrete values: negative, neutral, or positive). In both approaches, one needs a considerable involvement of humans, at least initially. Humans have to label their perception of the sentiment expressed either in individual words or in short texts. This sentiment labeling is language-, domain- and often even topic-specific.
An example of a lexicon-based approach that involves a massive human sentiment labeling of words is described by Dodds et al. BIBREF2 . They collected around 5 million human sentiment assessments of 10,000 common words, each in 10 languages and labeled 50 times. Another well-known sentiment lexicon is SentiWordNet BIBREF3 , constructed semi-automatically for over 100,000 words, but limited to English only.
In this paper we analyze a set of over 1.6 million Twitter posts, in 13 European languages, labeled for sentiment by human annotators. The labeled tweets are used as training data to train sentiment classifiers for different languages. An overview of the state-of-the-art of Twitter sentiment analysis is given in BIBREF4 . A more recent overview of the lexicon-based and machine learning methods, and their combination, is in BIBREF5 .
We focus on the quantity and quality of the labeled tweets, and their impact on the performance of sentiment classifiers. The quality of the labeled tweets is estimated from the agreement between human annotators. The main hypothesis of the paper is that the annotators agreement provides an upper bound for the classifier performance.
There are several more specific research questions we address:
(1) Are the sentiment classes ordered?
(2) Which evaluation measures are appropriate to quantify and compare the labeled data quality and classifiers performance?
(3) How to estimate the quality of the training data?
(4) How to compare and select appropriate classifiers?
(5) What are acceptable levels of the annotators agreement?
(6) How many labeled Twitter posts are needed for training a sentiment classifier?
In the paper we present three lines of experiments and results. One is related to manual annotation of Twitter posts and estimations of their quality and dataset properties. Another is about training sentiment classifiers, their performance and comparisons. The third line compares the labeled data quality with the classifier performance and provides support for our main hypothesis.
The paper is organized as follows. In the Results and Discussion section we provide the main results on the comparison of the annotators agreement and classifiers performance. We briefly outline the main evaluation measure used and the datasets analyzed. The evaluation procedures and methods are just sketched, to facilitate the discussion of the results—all the details are in the Methods section. The main emphasis is on an in-depth analysis of the datasets. We consider their evolution through time, as new tweets get annotated, and how the performance of the classifiers varies with time. We also discuss the effects of different distributions of the training and application datasets.
Conclusions provide answers to the research questions addressed, and give short- and long-term directions of future research.
The Methods section provides all the details about the first two lines of experiments and results, specifically about the data, annotations, and sentiment classifiers. We define four evaluation measures, common in the fields of inter-rater agreement and machine learning. The measures are used to compute the self- and inter-annotator agreements for all the datasets. From these results we derive evidence that human annotators perceive the sentiment classes as ordered. We present the related work on methods used for the Twitter sentiment classification, and publicly available labeled datasets. We compare the performance of six selected classifiers by applying a standard statistical test. We give the necessary details of the evaluation procedure and the standard Twitter pre-processing steps.
In the following subsection we give an overview of the related work on automated sentiment classification of Twitter posts. We summarize the published labeled sets used for training the classification models, and the machine learning methods applied for training. Most of the related work is limited to English texts only.
Results and Discussion
In this paper we analyze a large set of sentiment labeled tweets. We assume a sentiment label takes one of three possible values: negative, neutral, or positive. The analysis sheds light on two aspects of the data: the quality of human labeling of the tweets, and the performance of the sentiment classification models constructed from the same data. The main idea behind this analysis is to use the same evaluation measures to estimate both, the quality of human annotations and the quality of classification models. We argue that the performance of a classification model is primarily limited by the quality of the labeled data. This, in turn, can be estimated by the agreement between the human annotators.
The limits of performance
Determining sentiment expressed in a tweet is not an easy task, and depends on subjective judgment of human annotators. Annotators often disagree between themselves, and even an individual is not always consistent with her/himself. There are several reasons for disagreements, such as: inherent difficulty of the task (e.g., estimating the “sentiment” about the future stock movement), different vocabularies used in different domains (e.g., financial markets vs. environmental issues), topic drift in time (e.g., events which abruptly shift the topic of discussions on Twitter), or simply a poor quality of the annotator's work. In the data we analyze, we observe all the above issues, try to identify them by computational means, and draw lessons how the annotation process should be conducted in the future.
During the manual sentiment labeling of tweets, a fraction of tweets (about 15%) was intentionally duplicated to be annotated twice, either by the same annotator or by two different annotators (see details in the Datasets subsection in Methods). From multiple annotations of the same annotator we compute the self-agreement, and from multiple annotations by different annotators we compute the inter-annotator agreement (abbreviated as inter-agreement). The confidence intervals for the agreements are estimated by bootstrapping BIBREF11 . The detailed results are in the Annotator agreements subsection in Methods. It turns out that the self-agreement is a good measure to identify low quality annotators, and that the inter-annotator agreement provides a good estimate of the objective difficulty of the task, unless it is too low.
To manually label over 1.6 million tweets requires a considerable effort. The purpose of this effort is to use the labeled data to built sentiment classification models for each of the 13 languages. A classification model can then be applied to unlabeled data in various application scenarios, as was the case with our four application datasets.
A classification model can be build by any suitable supervised machine learning method. To evaluate the model, a standard approach in machine learning is to use 10-fold cross-validation. The whole labeled set is partitioned into 10 folds, one is set apart for testing, and the remaining nine are used to train the model and evaluate it on the test fold. The process is repeated 10 times until each fold is used for testing exactly once. The reported evaluation results are the average of 10 tests, and the confidence intervals are estimated from standard deviations.
We constructed and evaluated six different classification models for each labeled language dataset. The results for the application datasets are extracted from the original papers. Our classifiers are all based on Support Vector Machines (SVM) BIBREF12 , and for reference we also constructed a Naive Bayes classifier BIBREF13 . Detailed results are in the Classification models performance subsection in Methods. When comparing the classifiers' performance with the Friedman-Nemenyi test BIBREF14 , BIBREF15 , it turns out that there is no statistically significant difference between most of them (see the Friedman-Nemenyi test subsection in Methods). For subsequent analyses and comparisons, we selected the TwoPlaneSVMbin classifier that is always in the group of top classifiers according to two most relevant evaluation measures.
The main results of this paper are summarized in Fig FIGREF8 . It shows a comparison of the self-agreement, the inter-annotator agreement, and the TwoPlaneSVMbin classifier performance, for the 13 language datasets and the four application datasets.
The self-agreement for most of the datasets is above 0.6. The exceptions, Albanian and Spanish, indicate low quality annotators which should be eliminated from further considerations. In the applications corpus, the Emojis dataset is the only one with the self-agreement lower than the inter-annotator agreement, due to a high number of low quality Spanish annotations included. The other three application datasets have relatively high self-agreement (0.7–0.9, due to more carefully selected annotators), and higher variability (due to a lower number of tweets annotated twice, 2–4% only).
The inter-annotator agreement varies a lot, and is always lower than the self-agreement, except for Emojis. The high inter-annotator agreement for Facebook(it) is consistent with the high self-agreement. Values below 0.2 (Albanian and Spanish) indicate low quality annotators, consistent with the low self-agreement. Values in the range between 0.3–0.4 (Ser/Cro/Bos, Bulgarian, and German) indicate a problem with the annotation process, and are discussed in more detail in the next subsection.
The classifier performance is typically in the range between 0.4–0.6. Notable exceptions are Albanian and Spanish, with the performance barely above random, but very close to the inter-annotator agreement. More interesting are the datasets with a relatively low performance, around 0.4, that cannot be explained by low quality annotations alone: Ser/Cro/Bos, Bulgarian, German, Portuguese, and Environment. They are analyzed in the next subsections.
The main hypothesis of this paper is that the inter-annotator agreement approximates an upper bound for a classifier performance. In Fig FIGREF8 we observe three such cases where the classifier performance, in the range 0.4–0.6, approaches its limit: Polish, Slovenian, and DJIA30. There are also three cases where there still appears a gap between the classifier performance and the inter-annotator agreement: English, Facebook(it), and Environment. In order to confirm the hypothesis, we analyze the evolution of the classifiers performance through time and check if the performance is still improving or was the plateau already reached. This is not always possible: There are datasets where only one annotator was engaged and for which there is no inter-annotator agreement (Russian, Swedish, Hungarian, Slovak, and Portuguese). For them we can only draw analogies with the multiply annotated datasets and speculate about the conclusions.
In the next two subsection we first analyze the language datasets, and then the four application datasets.
Language datasets analyses
To label the 1.6 million tweets in the 13 languages, 83 native speakers were engaged, and an estimated effort of 38 person-months was spent. Can one reduce the efforts and focus them on more problematic datasets instead? It seems, for example, that the annotation of over 200,000 Polish tweets was an overkill. Worse, the annotation of over 250,000 Spanish tweets was largely a waste of efforts, due to the poor annotation quality.
We perform a post-hoc analysis of the 13 language datasets by measuring the performance of the sentiment classifiers through time. We emulate the evolution of the performance by feeding increasingly large labeled sets into the classifier training process. The labeled sets are ordered by the post time of the tweets, so one can detect potential topic shifts during the Twitter discussions. At each stage, the labeled set is increased by 10,000 tweets, and the set accumulated so far is used for training and testing the classifier. After each stage, the evaluation by 10-fold cross-validation is performed and the results are reported in the following charts. The final stage, when all the labeled sets are exhausted, corresponds to the results reported in Fig FIGREF8 . In subsequent figures, the x-axis denotes labeled sets increases by 10,000 tweets, the y-axis denotes the TwoPlaneSVMbin classifier performance measured by INLINEFORM0 , and the error bars are the 95% confidence intervals estimated from 10-fold cross-validations. The inter-annotator agreement is represented by a blue line—it is constant and is computed from all the available data.
We identify five cases, characterized by different relations between the classifier performance and the inter-annotator agreement: (i) a performance gap still exists, (ii) a performance limit is approached, (iii) low inter-annotator agreement, (iv) topic shift, and (v) very low annotation quality.
Fig FIGREF11 (chart on the left) shows the evolution of the English classifier performance, as it is fed increasingly large training sets. On top (in blue) is the inter-annotator agreement line ( INLINEFORM0 = 0.613). The classifier's INLINEFORM1 is increasing from the initial 0.422 to 0.516, but is still considerably below the inter-annotator agreement. Despite the relatively large training set (around 90,000 labeled tweets) there is still a performance gap and even more annotations are needed to approach the inter-annotator agreement.
We observe a similar pattern with the Russian (Fig FIGREF11 , chart on the right) and Slovak datasets (not shown). The inter-annotator agreement is unknown, but the classifier's performance is still increasing from the initial INLINEFORM0 of 0.403 to 0.490 for Russian, and from the initial 0.408 to 0.460 for Slovak. The size of the labeled sets for Russian is around 90,000, for Slovak around 60,000, and we argue that more training data is needed to further improve the performance.
A different pattern from the above can be observed in Fig FIGREF13 for the Polish dataset. After a slow improvement of the classifier's performance, the peak is reached at around 150,000 labeled tweets, and afterwards the performance remains stable and is even slightly decreasing. The maximum INLINEFORM0 is 0.536, close to the inter-annotator agreement of 0.571. At the same point, at 150,000 tweets, another performance measure, INLINEFORM1 , also peaks at its maximum value, even above the corresponding inter-annotator agreement. These results suggest that beyond a certain point, when the classifier's performance is “close enough” to the inter-annotator agreement, it does not pay off to further label tweets by sentiment. This is valid, however, only until a considerably new topic occurs.
Similar conclusions can be drawn for the Slovenian dataset (Fig FIGREF14 , chart on the left). The classifier's performance reaches its peak earlier, at 70,000 tweets, with the maximum INLINEFORM0 of 0.459, as well as the maximum INLINEFORM1 . INLINEFORM2 is close to the inter-annotator agreement of 0.485, and INLINEFORM3 even exceeds the corresponding agreement. However, notice that the inter-annotator agreement for Slovenian is almost 10% points lower than for Polish.
We observe a similar pattern for the Bulgarian dataset (Fig FIGREF14 , chart on the right). The classifier's peak performance is reached even earlier, at 40,000 tweets ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.378), but the inter-annotator agreement is also considerably lower, more than 10% points below the Slovenian ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.367). In such cases, when the inter-annotator agreement is “too low” (our estimate is when INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3 ), the inter-annotator agreement is a poor estimator of the difficulty of the task, and should not be used as a performance approximation. Instead, one could analyze the reasons for the disagreements, as we do with cases in the following paragraphs.
The inter-annotator agreement for the German dataset is low, INLINEFORM0 is 0.344. The classifier's performance is higher already with the initial small datasets, and soon starts dropping (Fig FIGREF16 , chart on the left). It turns out that over 90% of the German tweets were labeled by two annotators only, dubbed annotator A and B. The annotation quality of the two annotators is very different, the self-agreement INLINEFORM1 for the annotator A is 0.590, and for the annotator B is 0.760. We consider the German tweets labeled by A and B separately (Fig FIGREF16 , charts in the middle and on the right). The lower quality A dataset reaches its maximum at 30,000 tweets, while the performance of the higher quality B dataset is still increasing. There was also a relatively high disagreement between the two annotators which resulted in a low classifier's performance. A conclusions drawn from this dataset, as well as from the Bulgarian, is that one should constantly monitor the self- and inter-annotator agreements, and promptly notify the annotators as soon as the agreements drop too low.
Fig FIGREF17 gives the results on the joint Ser/Cro/Bos dataset. We observe a low inter-annotator agreement ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.329) and a high variability of the classifier's performance.
The three languages, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, are very similar and difficult to distinguish in short Twitter posts. However, we argue that the reason for poor performance is not in mixing the three languages, but in different annotation quality. Serbian (73,783 tweets) was annotated by 11 annotators, where two of them account for over 40% of the annotations. All the inter-annotator agreement measures come from the Serbian only (1,880 tweets annotated twice by different annotators, INLINEFORM0 is 0.329), and there are very few tweets annotated twice by the same annotator (182 tweets only, INLINEFORM1 for the self-agreement is 0.205). In contrast, all the Croatian and Bosnian tweets were annotated by a single annotator, and we have reliable self-agreement estimates. There are 97,291 Croatian tweets, 13,290 annotated twice, and the self-agreement INLINEFORM2 is 0.781. There are 44,583 Bosnian tweets, 6,519 annotated twice, and the self-agreement INLINEFORM3 is 0.722. We can conclude that the annotation quality of the Croatian and Bosnian tweets is considerably higher than of the Serbian. If we construct separate sentiment classifiers for each language we observe very different performance (see Fig FIGREF18 ). The Serbian classifier reaches the inter-annotator agreement (albeit low) at 70,000 tweets. The Croatian classifier has much higher performance, and reaches it maximum at 50,000 tweets ( INLINEFORM4 is 0.590). The performance of the Bosnian classifier is also higher, and is still increasing at 40,000 tweets ( INLINEFORM5 is 0.494). The individual classifiers are “well-behaved” in contrast to the joint Ser/Cro/Bos model in Fig FIGREF17 . In retrospect, we can conclude that datasets with no overlapping annotations and different annotation quality are better not merged.
There is no inter-annotator agreement for the Portuguese dataset because only one annotator was engaged. However, the classifier shows interesting performance variability (Fig FIGREF20 ). After an initial peak is reached at 50,000 tweets ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.394), there is a considerable drop and a very high variability of performance. Inspection of the tweets (the set of 10,000 tweets added to the first 50,000 tweets at stage 6) revealed that at the beginning of November 2013, the Portuguese government approved additional austerity measures, affecting mainly public sector, to avoid the second international bailout. This provoked a flood of negative reactions on social media, in particular on Twitter, and a considerable shift of focus and sentiment of Twitter discussions. The classification model could not react immediately to the topic shift, and it took additional 100,000 tweets to accommodate the new topics, and the model to approach the peak performance ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.391 for the complete dataset).
What happens with the classifier's performance when the annotation quality is low? Fig FIGREF22 shows the evolution of performance for the Spanish dataset. We observe high variability and consistent drop in performance. Most (over 95%) of the Spanish tweets were annotated by one annotator, and out of them, 40,116 tweets were annotated twice. Therefore we have a reliable estimate of the low quality of her/his annotations since the self-agreement INLINEFORM0 is only 0.244. 2,194 tweets were annotated twice by two annotators and, not surprisingly, the inter-annotator agreement is ever lower, INLINEFORM1 is 0.120.
We observe a similar performance drop for the Albanian dataset (not shown). The main annotator (who annotated over 22% of the Albanian tweets) has self-agreement INLINEFORM0 only 0.269 (computed from 1,963 tweets annotated twice). The inter-annotator agreement INLINEFORM1 is only 0.126.
Such poorly labeled data is useless for training sentiment classifiers. However, the lesson learned is that the annotators should be monitored throughout the annotation process, that the low quality annotators (identified by a low self-agreement) should be excluded, and that the low inter-annotator agreements should be promptly investigated.
Application datasets analyses
The purpose of building sentiment classification models is to apply them in particular domains, e.g., to monitor elections or to predict stock prices. The models are build from labeled data (where the sentiment is given) and applied to unlabeled data (where the sentiment is to be predicted). The models are also evaluated on the labeled data (typically by 10-fold cross-validation) and the estimated performance can be extended to the application if the labeled data is representative, i.e., drawn from the same distribution as the application data. In the context of Twitter sentiment classification this means that the labeled tweets have to be not only language-, but also domain-specific.
In the previous subsection we analyzed the classifiers performance on the labeled datasets and in relation to the annotator agreements. The potential improvements can be achieved by providing additional training data, by improving the inter-annotator agreements, and by excluding low quality annotators. In this subsection we also consider the relation between the training and application dataset distributions.
There are four applications where we already applied and published Twitter sentiment classification to different domains. Details about the sizes and distributions of the labeled and application datasets are in the Datasets subsection in Methods. Sentiment distribution is captured by the sentiment score which is computed as the mean of a discrete probability distribution—details are in BIBREF10 . Here we briefly analyze and suggest possible improvements with reference to the results in Fig FIGREF8 .
This is the only domain that is not limited to Twitter, but where the same sentiment classification methodology was applied to Facebook comments, in Italian. There was over 1 million Facebook comments collected, and a sample of about 20,000 was labeled for sentiment. The sentiment distribution in both sets is similar. The self-agreement and inter-annotator agreement are both high, however, there is a gap between the inter-annotator agreement ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.673) and the classifier's performance ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.562). Based on the lessons from the language datasets, we speculate that 20,000 training examples is not enough, and that additional Facebook comments have to be labeled to approach the inter-annotator agreement.
This domain deals with English tweets, but very specific for financial markets. The sentiment labeling requires considerable domain knowledge about specific financial terminology. There were over 1.5 million tweets about the Dow Jones stocks collected, and a sample of about 100,000 was annotated for sentiment. The sentiment distribution in both sets is very similar. The annotators self-agreement is high, but the inter-annotator agreement is relatively low ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.438), and the classifier even slightly exceeds it. Also, in the period from June 2013 to September 2014, a relatively small fraction of tweets was annotated twice (5,934), so the agreement estimates are less reliable. These considerations were taken into account in the subsequent period: from June 2014 to May 2015 altogether 19,720 tweets were annotated twice, and the inter-annotator agreement improved for 10% points (new INLINEFORM1 is 0.482).
This domain deals with sentiment leaning towards various environmental issues (like climate change, fossil fuels, fracking, etc.)—not so well-defined problem. Consequently, the self-agreement and inter-annotator agreement are relatively low in comparison to the Facebook(it) dataset. Still, there is a gap between the inter-annotator agreement ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.510) and the classifier's performance ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.397). The training set consists of only about 20,000 labeled tweets, and in analogy to the language datasets and Facebook(it) we conclude that additional tweets have to be labeled to improve the classifier performance.
However, there is another issue. There were altogether over 3 million tweets collected, and sentiment distribution in the training set is considerably different from the application set (sentiment scores are INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 , respectively; see Fig FIGREF27 ). The sampling was done just in the initial phases of the Twitter acquisition and is not representative of the whole application dataset.
We conducted an additional experiment to demonstrate the effects of different training and application sets. We applied the general English language sentiment classification model from the previous subsection, trained on all 90,000 English tweets, to the labeled environmental tweets. The classifier's performance ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.243) is considerably lower in comparison to the environment-specific model ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.397) which was trained on only 20,000 domain-specific tweets. The same holds for the INLINEFORM2 measure. Detailed evaluation results are in the Classification models performance subsection in Methods. This result confirms our thesis that Twitter sentiment classification is sensitive to domain of application and that sentiment labeling has to be domain-specific.
Note also that the general English classifier has higher accuracy ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.604) than the environment-specific model ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.556). Our conclusion is that this is a clear indication that accuracy is a misleading evaluation measure for the ordered three-class sentiment classification problem.
There is no automated sentiment classification with the Emojis dataset. From the 13 language datasets which consist in total of over 1.6 labeled tweets, we selected only the tweets that contain emojis, about 70,000 in total. The goal was to attribute the sentiment to emojis, based on the sentiment of all the tweets in which they occur. Fig FIGREF8 shows that Emojis is the only dataset where the self-agreement ( INLINEFORM0 is 0.544) is lower than the inter-annotator agreement ( INLINEFORM1 is 0.597). The reason for this anomaly is a large share of Spanish tweets with emojis (about 20,000) that have very low self-agreement ( INLINEFORM2 is 0.245). If we remove them from the Emojis set, the self-agreement increases considerably (new INLINEFORM3 is 0.720), while the inter-annotators agreement remains almost unchanged (new INLINEFORM4 is 0.598). This reconfirms our conclusion that low quality annotators have to be excluded and their annotations removed from the datasets.
Conclusions
We present an analysis of over 1.6 million sentiment annotated Twitter posts, by far the largest set made publicly available until now. The labeled datasets are used to train sentiment classification models, and our analysis focuses on four main aspects: quality, quantity and sampling of the training data, and performance of the classifiers. Our main conclusion is that the choice of a particular classifier type is not so important, but that the training data has a major impact on the results.
There are several specific research questions we address:
(1) What is the nature and proper formalization of the sentiment classification problem, in particular, are the sentiment values ordered or not? We show that there is strong evidence that the sentiment values, negative, neutral, and positive, are perceived as ordered by human annotators (see subsection on Ordering of sentiment values in Methods).
(2) Which evaluation measures should be used to properly quantify the data quality and classifiers performance? In all the experiment, we compute values for four evaluation measures ( INLINEFORM0 , INLINEFORM1 , INLINEFORM2 , and INLINEFORM3 ). Since there is evidence that sentiment values are ordered, INLINEFORM4 and INLINEFORM5 are the most appropriate as they take the ordering into account.
(3) How to estimate the quality of the training data? We propose to invest an extra effort to label a portion of tweets twice, and then to compute the annotator self-agreement and the inter-annotator agreement. The self-agreement yields a useful indication when to exclude low quality annotators, and the inter-annotator agreement approximates an upper bound on the performance of sentiment classifiers.
(4) How to select the most appropriate classifier? Our results show that there are no statistically significant differences between the top classifiers. As a consequence, one should better direct the efforts into higher training data quality.
(5) What are acceptable levels of annotators agreement? On the basis of the 17 datasets analyzed, we propose the following rule-of-thumb: for self-agreement, INLINEFORM0 INLINEFORM1 , and for the inter-annotator agreement, INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3 .
(6) How many posts should be labeled with sentiment for training? We cannot provide conclusive answers here. It seems that 20,000 high-quality annotations already provide reasonable performance. The peak performance depends on the inter-annotator agreement and we estimate that around 100,000 annotations are needed. However, more important than sheer quantity is the quality, and domain- and topic-specific coverage of the posts, as demonstrated on several use-cases.
This gives the following directions for the short-term future work. The annotation process has to be redesigned to allow for systematic monitoring of the annotation quality. In particular, more than one annotator per language/domain has to be engaged. We propose an increased overhead of posts to be labeled twice, from 15% to 20%, both by individuals as well as by two different annotators. The posts to be labeled multiple times could be based on their “importance” as measured by their retweet count BIBREF9 , for example. The self- and the inter-annotator agreements have to be continuously monitored and warnings issued when they drop below the selected thresholds. Extreme disagreements (as measured by INLINEFORM0 ) should be promptly directed to a “master” annotator who has to resolve the disagreement and issue a proper annotation together with a brief guideline. After each batch of a few thousand annotations, a classification model should be trained and its performance evaluated. This would help in monitoring the progress towards the inter-annotator agreement as well as in detecting possible abrupt topic shifts.
There is a number of open research questions to be addressed. One is how to combine the lexicon-based and machine learning approaches to sentiment classification. In BIBREF5 , authors already showed that the combination of both outperforms the individual approaches. However, sentiment lexicons are rarely available for languages other than English and require considerable efforts to construct. For several languages, one could use the data published by Dodds et al. BIBREF2 . For the languages covered in this study, one can construct a basic sentiment lexicon from the annotated tweets, in the analogy to derivation of the emoji sentiment lexicon BIBREF10 .
Another research direction, with the potential of considerable performance improvements, is the construction and selection of informative features from short Twitter posts. In this study we apply a number of standard text pre-processing steps to extract just the textual features and eliminate noise in tweets. However, there is a lot of additional information on Twitter to be exploited. For example, the importance of tweets (estimated by the retweet count, for example), the influence and reliability of Twitter users (estimated by their followers, retweets, and correlations to the real-world events), and the network features (e.g., neighbourhood and centrality) that can be attributed to the users, and indirectly to their tweets. We expect that proper considerations of the broader context in which the tweets are posted can provide for a major leap in quality and predictive potential of the Twitter sentiment classifiers.
Finally, since the analysis of opinions expressed in social media is an active and evolving research area, we plan to keep up with the newest trends, such as performing entity-based sentiment analysis BIBREF16 , applying deep learning techniques BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 , analyzing figurative language (e.g., irony or sarcasm) BIBREF20 , and detecting different types of emotions (e.g., joy, sadness or anger) BIBREF21 . The most interesting direction seems to be a shift from the basic sentiment categories (negative, neutral, and positive) of the whole tweet, to the finer-grained emotions about a discussed entity or topic.
Ethics statement
The tweets were collected through the public Twitter API and are subject to the Twitter terms and conditions. The human annotators were engaged for the purpose of sentiment labeling, and were aware that their annotations will be used to construct the sentiment classification models, and to estimate the annotator self-agreement and the inter-annotator agreement.
Datasets
In this study we analyze two corpora of data (see Table TABREF30 ). The first corpus is a collection of tweets, in 13 European languages, posted between April 2013 and February 2015. The tweets, except English, were collected during a joint project with Gama System (http://www.gama-system.si), using their PerceptionAnalytics platform (http://www.perceptionanalytics.net). The tweets were acquired through Twitter Search API, by specifying the geolocations of the largest cities. For English tweets, we used Twitter Streaming API (a random sample of 1% of all the public tweets), and filtered out the English posts.
83 native speakers (except for English) were engaged to manually label with sentiment over 1.6 million of the collected tweets. The annotation process was supported by the Goldfinch platform (provided by Sowa Labs, http://www.sowalabs.com), designed specifically for sentiment annotation of short texts (such as Twitter posts, Facebook comments, etc.). The annotators were instructed to label each tweet as either negative, neutral, or positive, by estimating the emotional attitude of the user who posted the tweet. Tweets that were skipped or excluded are not considered in this study.
The second corpus of data are four application datasets, used in different application scenarios and already published BIBREF7 , BIBREF8 , BIBREF9 , BIBREF10 .
The datasets in Table TABREF30 are used to analyze the annotator agreements, and to build the sentiment classification models. The classification models build from three out of four application datasets were actually applied to much larger sets of unlabeled data, to predict the sentiment. Details are in Table TABREF31 . For each of the three application domains we also show the difference between the application and training phase in terms of the sentiment score (the mean of a discrete probability distribution, see BIBREF10 for details). For the Emojis dataset, no sentiment classification model was trained—the tweets with emojis were just extracted from the above corpus of 13 language datasets.
Table TABREF32 gives the details of the number of posts annotated twice, by the same annotator or by two different annotators.
The 13 language datasets are publicly available for further analyses. Actually, our analysis reveales that it is better to partition the Ser/Cro/Bos dataset into the three constituent languages, therefore we provide the sentiment annotation data for the 15 languages. The data is available as 15 language files, in the csv format, in a public language resource repository clarin.si at http://hdl.handle.net/11356/1054. For each language and for each labeled tweet, there is the tweet ID (as provided and required by Twitter), the sentiment label (negative, neutral, or positive), and the annotator ID (anonymized). From this data, one can compute the annotator agreement measures, construct the “gold standard” training data, and train the classifiers for different languages.
Evaluation measures
In general, the agreement can be estimated between any two methods of generating data. One of the main ideas of this work is to use the same measures to estimate the agreement between the human annotators as well as the agreement between the results of automated classification and the “gold standard”. There are different measures of agreement, and to get robust estimates we apply four well-known measures from the fields of inter-rater agreement and machine learning.
Krippendorff's Alpha-reliability ( INLINEFORM0 ) BIBREF6 is a generalization of several specialized agreement measures. It works for any number of annotators, and is applicable to different variable types and metrics (e.g., nominal, ordered, interval, etc.). INLINEFORM1 is defined as follows: INLINEFORM2
where INLINEFORM0 is the observed disagreement between annotators, and INLINEFORM1 is a disagreement, expected by chance. When annotators agree perfectly, INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3 , and when the level of agreement equals the agreement by chance, INLINEFORM4 INLINEFORM5 . The two disagreement measures are defined as follows: INLINEFORM6
INLINEFORM0
The arguments, INLINEFORM0 , and INLINEFORM1 , refer to the frequencies in a coincidence matrix, defined below. INLINEFORM2 is a difference function between the values of INLINEFORM3 and INLINEFORM4 , and depends on the metric properties of the variable. INLINEFORM5 (and INLINEFORM6 ) is a discrete sentiment variable with three possible values: negative ( INLINEFORM7 ), neutral (0), or positive (+). We consider two options: either the sentiment variable INLINEFORM8 is nominal or ordered. This gives rise to two instance of INLINEFORM9 , INLINEFORM10 (nominal, when INLINEFORM11 is unordered) and INLINEFORM12 (interval, when INLINEFORM13 is ordered), corresponding to two difference functions INLINEFORM14 : INLINEFORM15
INLINEFORM0
Note that in the case of the interval difference function, INLINEFORM0 assigns a disagreement of 1 between the neutral and the negative or positive sentiment, and a disagreement of 2 between the extremes, i.e., the negative and positive sentiment. The corresponding disagreements INLINEFORM1 and INLINEFORM2 between the extreme classes are then four times larger than between the neighbouring classes.
A coincidence matrix tabulates all pairable values of INLINEFORM0 from two annotators into a INLINEFORM1 -by- INLINEFORM2 square matrix, where INLINEFORM3 is the number of possible values of INLINEFORM4 . In the case of sentiment annotations, we have a 3-by-3 coincidence matrix. The diagonal contains all the perfect matches, and the matrix is symmetrical around the diagonal. A coincidence matrix has the following general form: INLINEFORM5
In our case, INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 range over the three possible sentiment values. In a coincidence matrix, each labeled unit is entered twice, once as a INLINEFORM2 pair, and once as a INLINEFORM3 pair. INLINEFORM4 is the number of units labeled by the values INLINEFORM5 and INLINEFORM6 by different annotators, INLINEFORM7 and INLINEFORM8 are the totals for each value, and INLINEFORM9 is the grand total.
The computed values of INLINEFORM0 are subject to sampling variability, determined by an unknown sampling distribution. The sampling distribution can be approximated by bootstrapping BIBREF11 . In our case, we set the number of bootstrap samples to 1,000, and estimate the 95% confidence interval of true INLINEFORM1 .
F score ( INLINEFORM0 ) is an instance of a well-known effectiveness measure in information retrieval BIBREF22 . We use an instance specifically designed to evaluate the 3-class sentiment classifiers BIBREF23 . INLINEFORM1 is defined as follows: INLINEFORM2
INLINEFORM0 implicitly takes into account the ordering of sentiment values, by considering only the negative INLINEFORM1 and positive INLINEFORM2 labels. The middle, neutral, label is taken into account only indirectly. In general, INLINEFORM3 is a harmonic mean of precision and recall for class INLINEFORM4 . In the case of a coincidence matrix, which is symmetric, the `precision' and `recall' are equal, and thus INLINEFORM5 degenerates into: INLINEFORM6
In terms of the annotator agreement, INLINEFORM0 is the fraction of equally labeled tweets out of all the tweets with label INLINEFORM1 .
Accuracy ( INLINEFORM0 ) is a common, and the simplest, measure of performance of the model which measures the agreement between the model and the “gold standard”. INLINEFORM1 is defined in terms of the observed disagreement INLINEFORM2 : INLINEFORM3
INLINEFORM0 is simply the fraction of the diagonal elements of the coincidence matrix. Note that it does not account for the (dis)agreement by chance, nor for the ordering of the sentiment values.
Accuracy within 1 ( INLINEFORM0 ) is a special case of accuracy within n BIBREF24 . It assumes ordered classes and extends the range of predictions considered correct to the INLINEFORM1 neighbouring class values. In our case, INLINEFORM2 considers as incorrect only misclassifications from negative to positive and vice-versa: INLINEFORM3
Note that it is easy to maximize INLINEFORM0 by simply classifying all the examples as neutral; then INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 .
The four agreement measures are always computed from the same coincidence matrix. In the case of the annotator agreements, the coincidence matrix is formed from the pairs of sentiment labels assigned to a tweet by different annotators (or the same when she/he annotated the tweet several times). In the case of a classification model, an entry in the coincidence matrix is a pair of labels, one from the model prediction, and the other from the “gold standard”. Experiments show that a typical ordering of the agreement results is: INLINEFORM0 INLINEFORM1 INLINEFORM2 INLINEFORM3 INLINEFORM4 INLINEFORM5 INLINEFORM6 .
The annotator agreements
Table TABREF35 gives the results of the annotator agreements in terms of the four evaluation measures. The self-agreement is computed from the tweets annotated twice by the same annotator, and the inter-annotator agreement from the tweets annotated twice by two different annotators, where possible. The 95% confidence intervals for INLINEFORM0 are computed from 1,000 bootstrap samples.
Note that the Albanian and Spanish datasets have very low INLINEFORM0 agreement values. All the results for INLINEFORM1 , reported here and throughout the paper, refer to the INLINEFORM2 instance, for the reasons outlined in the next subsection.
Ordering of sentiment values
Should the sentiment classes negative ( INLINEFORM0 ), neutral (0), and positive (+) be treated as nominal (categorical, unordered) or ordered? One can use the agreement measures to estimate how are the three classes perceived by the human annotators.
First, lets compare the agreements in terms of two variants of INLINEFORM0 : INLINEFORM1 (interval) and INLINEFORM2 (nominal). The difference between the two measures is that INLINEFORM3 assigns four times higher cost to extreme disagreements (between the negative and positive classes) than INLINEFORM4 . A measure which yields higher agreements hints at the nature of sentiment class ordering as perceived by humans. The results in Table TABREF37 , column two, show that INLINEFORM5 always yields higher agreement than INLINEFORM6 , except for Spanish. We compute the average relative agreement gains by ignoring the Albanian and Spanish datasets (which have poor annotation quality), and Emojis (which are already subsumed by the 13 language datasets). We observe that the average agreement is 18% higher with INLINEFORM7 than with INLINEFORM8 . This gives a strong indication that the sentiment classes are perceived as ordered by the annotators.
Second, we can use the agreement as a proxy to measure the “distance” between the sentiment classes. Lets assume that the difficulty of distinguishing between the extreme classes ( INLINEFORM0 , +), as measured by INLINEFORM1 , is normalized to 1. If it is more difficult to distinguish between the neutral (0) and each extreme ( INLINEFORM2 or +) then the normalized agreement will be lower than 1, otherwise it will be greater than 1. The results in Table TABREF37 , columns three and four, indicate that for almost all the datasets the normalized agreement is lower than 1. The only exceptions are Slovak and Spanish. If we ignore the Albanian, Spanish, and Emojis we observe the following average differences: (i) it is 27% ( INLINEFORM3 ) more difficult to distinguish between the negative ( INLINEFORM4 ) and neutral (0) than between the negative ( INLINEFORM5 ) and positive (+); and (ii) it is 35% ( INLINEFORM6 ) more difficult to distinguish between the positive (+) and neutral (0) than between the positive (+) and negative ( INLINEFORM7 ).
The above results support our hypothesis that the sentiment values are ordered: negative INLINEFORM0 neutral INLINEFORM1 positive. This has an implication on the selection of an appropriate performance measure and a classification model. The performance measure should take the class ordering into account, therefore our selection of INLINEFORM2 over INLINEFORM3 is justified. In this respect, INLINEFORM4 would also be appropriate, and it actually shows high correlation to INLINEFORM5 . The choice of an appropriate classification model is discussed in the next two subsections.
Related sentiment classification approaches
In this subsection we give an overview of the related work on automated sentiment classification of Twitter posts. We summarize the published labeled sets used for training the classification models, and the machine learning methods applied for training. Most of the related work is limited to English texts only.
To train a sentiment classifier, one needs a fairly large training dataset of tweets already labeled with sentiment. One can rely on a proxy, e.g., emoticons used in the tweets to determine the intended sentiment BIBREF25 , however, high quality labeling requires engagement of human annotators.
There exist several publicly available and manually labeled Twitter datasets. They vary in the number of examples from several hundreds to several thousands, but to the best of our knowledge, none exceeds 20,000 entries. Saif et al. BIBREF16 describe eight Twitter sentiment datasets and also introduce a new one which contains separate sentiment labels for tweets and entities. Rosenthal et al. BIBREF26 provide statistics for several of the 2013–2015 SemEval datasets. Haldenwang and Vornberger BIBREF27 present a publicly available collection of Twitter posts, which were labeled not only with the positive or negative sentiment, but also as uncertain or spam. Finally, several Twitter sentiment datasets are publicly available in CrowdFlower's “Data for Everyone” collection.
There are several supervised machine learning algorithms suitable to train sentiment classifiers from sentiment labeled tweets. For example, in the SemEval-2015 competition, for the task on Sentiment Analysis on Twitter BIBREF26 , the most often used algorithms are Support Vector Machines (SVM), Maximum Entropy, Conditional Random Fields, and linear regression. In other cases, frequently used are also Naive Bayes, k-Nearest-Neighbor, and even Decision Trees. In the following we cite several relevant papers, and report, where available, the comparison in performance between the algorithms used.
Go et al. BIBREF25 employ the keyword-based approach, Naive Bayes, Maximum Entropy, and SVM, and show that the best performing algorithm is Maximum Entropy. The authors in BIBREF28 show that Maximum Entropy outperforms Naive Bayes. In contrast, the authors in BIBREF29 report that Naive Bayes performs considerably better than Maximum Entropy. Pak and Paroubek BIBREF30 show that Naive Bayes outperforms the SVM and Conditional Random Fields algorithms. Asiaee et al. BIBREF31 employ a dictionary learning approach, weighted SVM, k-Nearest-Neighbor, and Naive Bayes—Naive Bayes and its weighted variant are among the best performing algorithms. Saif et al. BIBREF32 employ Naive Bayes for predicting sentiment in tweets.
Often, SVM is shown as the best performing classifier for Twitter sentiment. For example, BIBREF33 test several algorithms implemented in Weka, and SVM performed best. The authors in BIBREF5 test the Naive Bayes, Decision Trees, and SVM algorithms, and find that the best performing algorithm is SVM. Preliminary results reported in BIBREF23 show that linear SVM yields better performance than the Maximum Entropy classifier. Jiang et al. BIBREF34 employ SVM models for subjectivity and polarity classification of Twitter posts. Davidov et al. BIBREF35 employ k-Nearest-Neighbor. Kouloumpis et al. BIBREF36 employ AdaBoost.MH, and also test SVMs, but the performance results of SVMs are lower. Recently, researchers also applied deep learning for Twitter sentiment classification BIBREF17 , BIBREF18 , BIBREF19 .
A wide range of machine learning algorithms is used, and apparently there is no consensus on which one to choose for the best performance. Different studies use different datasets, focus on different use cases, and use incompatible evaluation measures. There are additional factors with considerable impact on the performance, such as the natural language pre-processing of tweets, and formation of appropriate features. Typically, features are based on the bag-of-words presentation of tweets, but there are many subtle choices to be made.
Classification models performance
As discussed in the previous subsection, there are many supervised machine learning algorithms suitable for training sentiment classification models. Variants of Support Vector Machine (SVM) BIBREF12 are often used, because they are well suited for large-scale text categorization tasks, are robust on large feature spaces, and perform well. The basic SVM is a two-class, binary classifier. In the training phase, SVM constructs a hyperplane in a high-dimensional vector space that separates one class from the other. During the classification, the side of the hyperplane then determines the class. A binary SVM can be extended into multi-class and regression classifiers BIBREF37 . For this study we implemented five extensions of the basic SVM; some of them take the sentiment class ordering explicitly into account. All the SVM algorithms, and several others, including Naive Bayes BIBREF13 , are implemented in the open-source LATINO library BIBREF38 (a light-weight set of software components for building text mining applications, available at https://github.com/latinolib).
NeutralZoneSVM is an extension of the basic two-class SVM and assumes that neutral tweets are “between” the negative and positive tweets. The classifier is trained just on the negative and positive tweets. During the classification, the side of the hyperplane determines the sentiment class (negative or positive). However, tweets which are “too close” to the hyperplane are considered neutral. Various realizations of “too close” are described in BIBREF39 , BIBREF40 .
TwoPlaneSVM assumes the ordering of sentiment classes and implements ordinal classification BIBREF24 . It consists of two SVM classifiers: One classifier is trained to separate the negative tweets from the neutral-or-positives; the other separates the negative-or-neutrals from the positives. The result is a classifier with two hyperplanes (nearly parallel for all practical cases) which separates the vector space into three subspaces: negative, neutral, and positive. During classification, the distances from both hyperplanes determine the predicted class.
TwoPlaneSVMbin is a refinement of the TwoPlaneSVM classifier. It partitions the space around both hyperplanes into bins, and computes the distribution of the training examples in individual bins. During classification, the distances from both hyperplanes determine the appropriate bin, but the class is determined as the majority class in the bin. Additionally, the classifier can also provide the confidence of the predicted class.
CascadingSVM also consists of two SVM classifiers, but does not assume that the classes are ordered. Instead, the first classifier separates the neutral tweets (“objective”) from the union of negatives and positives (“subjective”). The second classifier in the cascade then considers only the “subjective” tweets and separates the negatives from positives.
ThreePlaneSVM treats the three sentiment classes as nominal, unordered. It consists of three binary classifiers in the one-vs-one setting: the first separates negatives from neutrals, the second neutrals from positives, and the third negatives from positives. The three independent classifiers partition the vector space into eight subspaces. In analogy to the TwoPlaneSVMbin, the distribution of the training examples in each subspace determines the majority class to be predicted during classification.
NaiveBayes is a well-know supervised machine learning algorithm, and is included here for reference. It is a probabilistic classifier based on the Bayes theorem, and does not assume ordering of the sentiment classes.
All the above algorithms were applied to the 13 language datasets and evaluated by 10-fold cross-validation. Standard 10-fold cross-validation randomly partitions the whole labeled set into 10 equal folds. One is set apart for testing, the remaining nine are used to train the model, and the train-test procedure is run over all 10 folds. Cross-validation is stratified when the partitioning is not completely random, but each fold has roughly the same class distribution. With time-ordered data, as is the Twitter stream, one should also consider blocked form of cross-validation BIBREF41 , where there is no randomization, and each fold is a block of consecutive tweets. There are also other evaluation procedures suitable for time-ordered data, different than cross-validation, like ordered sub-sampling, but this is beyond the scope of the paper. In this study we applied blocked, stratified, 10-fold cross-validation in all the experiments.
The Twitter data is first pre-processed by standard text processing methods, i.e., tokenization, stemming/lemmatization (if available for a specific language), unigram and bigram construction, and elimination of terms that do not appear at least 5 times in a dataset. The Twitter specific pre-processing is then applied, i.e, replacing URLs, Twitter usernames and hashtags with common tokens, adding emoticon features for different types of emoticons in tweets, handling of repetitive letters, etc. The feature vectors are constructed by the Delta TF-IDF weighting scheme BIBREF42 .
Evaluation results, in terms of INLINEFORM0 , are summarized in Fig FIGREF40 . The classifiers are ordered by their average performance rank across the 13 datasets. More detailed results, in terms of all four evaluation measures, and also including the application datasets, are in Table TABREF41 . Note that the sizes of the training datasets are lower than the numbers of annotated tweets in Table TABREF30 . Namely, tweets annotated several times are first merged into single training examples, thus forming the “gold standard” for training and testing. If all the annotations are the same, the assigned label is obvious. If the annotations differ, the following merging rules are applied: neutral and negative INLINEFORM1 negative; neutral and positive INLINEFORM2 positive; and negative and positive INLINEFORM3 neutral.
The Friedman-Nemenyi test
Are there significant differences between the six classifiers, in terms of their performance? The results depend on the evaluation measure used, but generally the top classifiers are not distinguishable.
A standard statistical method for testing the significant differences between multiple classifiers BIBREF43 is the well-known ANOVA and its non-parametric counterpart, the Friedman test BIBREF14 . The Friedman test ranks the classifiers for each dataset separately. The best performing classifier is assigned rank 1, the second best rank 2, etc. When there are ties, average ranks are assigned. The Friedman test then compares the average ranks of the classifiers. The null hypothesis is that all the classifiers are equivalent and so their ranks should be equal. If the null hypothesis is rejected, one proceeds with a post-hoc test.
If one wants to compare a control classifier to other classifiers, the Bonferroni-Dunn post-hoc test is used. In our case, however, all the classifiers are compared to each other, and the weaker Nemenyi test BIBREF15 is used. The Nemenyi test computes the critical distance between any pair of classifiers. The performance of the two classifiers is significantly different if the corresponding average ranks differ by at least the critical distance.
Fig FIGREF43 gives the results of the Friedman-Nemenyi test for the six classifiers trained in this study. We focus on two evaluation measures that take the ordering of sentiment classes into account: INLINEFORM0 and INLINEFORM1 . There are two classifiers which are in the group of top indistinguishable classifiers in both cases: ThreePlaneSVM (ranked 3rd) and TwoPlaneSVMbin (ranked 4th and 1st). We decided to interpret and discuss all the results in this paper using the TwoPlaneSVMbin classifier, since it is explicitly designed for ordered classes.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the European Union projects SIMPOL (no. 610704), MULTIPLEX (no. 317532) and DOLFINS (no. 640772), and by the Slovenian ARRS programme Knowledge Technologies (no. P2-103).
We acknowledge Gama System (http://www.gama-system.si) who collected most of the tweets (except English), and Sowa Labs (http://www.sowalabs.com) for providing the Goldfinch platform for sentiment annotations. Special thanks go to Sašo Rutar who implemented several classification algorithms and evaluation procedures in the LATINO library for text mining (https://github.com/latinolib). We thank Mojca Mikac for computing the Krippendorff's INLINEFORM0 confidence intervals, and Dragi Kocev for help with the Friedman-Nemenyi test.

Question: What evidence is presented that humans perceive the sentiment classes as ordered?
Answer: average agreement is 18% higher with INLINEFORM7 than with INLINEFORM8

the average agreement is 18% higher with INLINEFORM7 than with INLINEFORM8

Question: What size of dataset is sufficiently large for the model performance to approach the inter-annotator agreement?
Answer: around 100,000 annotations

150,000 labeled tweets

Question: Which measures of inter-annotator agreement are used?
Answer: Krippendorff's Alpha-reliability

Krippendorff's Alpha-reliability ( INLINEFORM0 ) BIBREF6, F score ( INLINEFORM0 ), Accuracy ( INLINEFORM0 ), Accuracy within 1 ( INLINEFORM0 )

Question: What statistical test(s) is used to compare the top classification models?
Answer:  Friedman-Nemenyi test

 Friedman-Nemenyi test BIBREF14 , BIBREF15