Paper:
Improving sentiment classification with task-specific data
Current state-of-the-art sentiment analysis techniques rely heavily on pre-trained word embeddings. However, the data used to train these embeddings normally comes from large, generic datasets, such as Wikipedia or GoogleNews, which may not include enough task-specific information to create reliable representations. This paper proposes a method to determine the subjectivity of a corpus using available tools and shows that word embeddings trained on task-specific corpora tend to outperform those trained on generic data. We then examine ways to combine information from generic and task-specific datasets and finally demonstrate that our method can work well for under-resourced languages.
1 Introduction
Sentiment analysis techniques requiring only word embeddings as features have proven to be successful (Socher et al., 2013; Tang et al., 2014; Iyyer et al., 2015). Research has also shown the importance of properly initializing the word embeddings, either through careful manipulation of the initialization of random vectors, or more commonly by pretraining the word embeddings (Kim, 2014). The content of the corpora used to train these word embeddings, however, has not been examined in depth.
Most research tends toward using larger and larger datasets in order to build high-quality word embeddings, with some studies using corpora on the magnitude of several billion tokens (Mikolov et al., 2013; Pennington et al., 2014). This amount of data, however, is not available in all languages, nor is it necessarily an optimal use of available re-
sources. In fact, there is evidence suggesting that tailoring a dataset for a task can achieve better results with less data (Suster et al., 2016; Barnes et al., 2016).
The subjectivity or polarity content of a corpus could provide a good clue to the quality of word embeddings created for the task of sentiment analysis. Pang and Lee (2004) showed that using a pipeline technique where they first classified subjectivity before classifying polarity, they were able to achieve better results than performing classification without filtering subjective sentences. Therefore, we attempt to use subjectivity as a metric for the appropriateness of a corpus for our task.
In this work we aim to:
• discover if small task-specific datasets can provide better representations of words than large generic datasets for the task of sentiment analysis
• quantify the amount of subjectivity in the data in order to predict the appropriateness of a dataset for the task of sentiment analysis.
• discover the best way to combine this information for our task, given a large generic dataset and a smaller domain-specific dataset.
• extract the subjective information as a way of approximating a smaller task-specific dataset, given only large generic datasets,
As far as we know, this is the first work on the effects of the subjectivity and task-specificity of a corpus on the creation of word embeddings for the task of sentiment analysis. Given the importance of initialization and the wide-spread use of sentiment analysis techniques using word embeddings, the results are of importance to the community.
2
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses previous work on subjectivity, generic word embeddings and task-specific word embeddings. Section 3 outlines how to quantify the subjectivity of a corpus. Section 4 determines how subjectivity and task-specificity effects word embeddings, and how to combine information from different datasets in order to improve classification. In Section 5 we propose a method to extract task-specific information from generic corpora and, by using the techniques from Section 4.2, improve over our baseline. Finally, in Section 6 we show that this technique of concatenation representations works even better for underresourced languages.
2 Related Work
2.1 Subjectivity as a filter for polarity
Subjectivity can be a clear indicator of whether a sentence or phrase contains an opinion. In the case of movie or product reviews, this is especially relevant as there are often sentences that seemingly contain sentiment information, yet do not give an opinion towards any relevant aspect: for example, ”The main character tries to protect her good name.” Here, ’good’ gives no relevant sentiment information and could easily be found within a negative review.
Pang and Lee (2004) use a subjectivity classifier to extract relevant sentences before passing them on to a sentiment classifier. Reducing the amount of irrelevant or potentially misleading data presumably leads to an improvement in polarity classification.
This approach could potentially improve vector representations of words by providing only relevant examples to the word embedding algorithm.
2.2 Representing Words as Vectors
Representing words as feature vectors is an idea that has created interest for many years (Deerwester et al., 1990; Lund and Burgess, 1996). The simplest example is to represent a word as a onehot vector the length of the vocabulary, where all entries are zeros except for the index of the word, which is a 1. However, this simple technique does not allow for generalization, as the words ’dog’ and ’cat’ are as different as ’dog’ and ’dogs’.
Lower-dimensional dense vectors, often known as word embeddings, are able to avoid this problem to a degree. They do this by attempting to
force similar words to occupy a similar area in vector space, given an objective function. The most successful of these applications to date is the Skip Gram with Negative Sampling (SGNS) algorithm (Mikolov et al., 2013). This algorithm applies PMI factorization over an implicit word/feature matrix (Levy and Goldberg, 2014).
Although generic word embeddings are often used as features for sentiment classifiers (Socher et al., 2013; Kim, 2014), there are good reasons to believe that the generality of these vectors may lead to inferior results. Most state-of-the-art sentiment classifiers are based on deep neural networks. With these architectures it is rather difficult, if not impossible, to find the global optimum and therefore, we must usually be content to find a local optimum. This fact also means that they are sensitive to the initialization of their word embeddings. For this reason, sentiment classifiers initialized with random vectors consistently underperform those initialized with pretrained vectors (Kim, 2014; Iyyer et al., 2015).
2.3 Task-specific Word Embeddings
Task-specific word embeddings are a further development of word embeddings. The purpose is to provide a representation that helps a classifier, often by removing or adding task-specific information.
These vectors can be trained as normal and then retrofitted to the task (Yu and Dredze, 2014; Xu et al., 2014; Faruqui et al., 2015). The advantage of this technique is that any kind of word embedding can be used, as the vectors are modified post training. Faruqui et al. (2015) propose a method to incorporate information from semantic lexicons (WordNet, FrameNet, and ParaphraseNet) into word embeddings.
Task-specific word embeddings can also be trained in a supervised manner, using the labels from annotated corpora (Maas et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2014, 2016) or task-specific dictionaries (Gouws and Søgaard, 2015). For the inclusion of sentiment information in word vectors, this is the most common approach.
Maas et al. (2011) build a probabilistic model, similar to LDA (Blei et al., 2003), and attempt to model both word relationships and sentiment at the same time. However, their sentiment vectors performed worse than generic word vectors without the sentiment information.
3
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
Tang et al. (2014) attempt to create sentimentspecific word vectors by modifying the feedforward network architecture used by Collobert and Weston (2011) with a hinge-objective that is designed to maximize both the word representation and the model’s ability to classify polarity. They collected 10 million distantly supervised tweets by searching for positive and negative emoticons. They trained a sentiment classifier and achieved state-of-the-art results on the SemEval2013 shared task (Nakov et al., 2013).
Both of these techniques attempt to use large amounts of annotated data to extract sentiment information, but do not consider different sources of data or ways to combine them. However, it would be beneficial to examine more in depth the type of data that we use to create word vectors.
The work that most closely resembles our is that of Joshi et al. (2015). They explore the effects of using in-domain and generic datasets to create embeddings for e-commerce NER. Their work shows that training on smaller amounts of task-specific data is better than training on large amounts of generic data. Unlike our work, they do not look into ways of combining information from different sources.
3 Quantifying the amount of subjectivity in corpora
3.1 Datasets
Our first goal was to quantify the amount of subjective information contained in a corpus. We collected the following corpora, which we believe represent both generic datasets often used in the literature (Wikipedia, Europarl, Multi UN) as well as task-specific corpora (Amazon Movie Dataset). All corpora were sentence tokenized, word tokenized and lower-cased using Stanford Core NLP (Manning et al., 2014). We give the details of each corpus in the following subsections as well as in Table 1.
Wikipedia Corpus
After downloading a 2016 Wikipedia dump, we removed duplicates and markup using a freely available script1.
1http://attardi.github.io/wikiextractor/
English Europarl The English part of the Europarl v7 corpus2 (Koehn, 2005) is composed of around 2 million sentences from the European Parliament.
Multi UN MultiUN3 is a corpus extracted from the official documents of the United Nations (Eisele and Chen, 2010). We use the English side of the English-Spanish corpus. It contains around 11 million sentences.
Amazon Movie Corpus This dataset is composed of more than 7.5 million sentences taken from nearly 1.7 million reviews about movies (McAuley et al., 2015).
3.2 Method
In order to determine the amount of subjectivity contained in each corpus, we ran OpinionFinder on each of them. This is a system that was designed for subjectivity and polarity detection (Wilson et al., 2005). It has a high-precision and highrecall subjectivity classifier. The high-precision classifier uses a rule-based method, looking for well-established lexical clues. The high-recall classifier is a naive bayes classifier trained on the MPQA corpus. After running OpinionFinder on each corpus, we retrieved the results for highprecision subjectivity and high-recall subjectivity. In order to quantify the amount of subjectivity, we took the number of sentences reported as subjective and divide them by the total number of sentences in the corpus, (see Formula 1).
Subjectivity Score = |subjective sentences| |total sentences|
(1)
This gives us an idea of the subjectivity content of one corpus compared to the others, although it is not a precise measurement. We did the same with high-precision and high-recall to get two scores for each corpus (see Table 1). As we expected, the Wikipedia corpus has the lowest scores for subjectivity. This is likely because of its encyclopedic format. The corpora with the highest subjectivity scores are the Amazon (high precision) and Europarl (high recall) corpora.
2http://www.statmt.org/europarl 3http://opus.lingfil.uu.se/
4
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
Wiki Multi UN Europarl Amazon High recall subj. 14.8% 33% 49% 41.5% High precision subj. 2.8% 5.1% 6% 9.3% # Sentences 118,859,889 11,350,967 1,965,734 7,540,838 # Tokens 2,099,860,107 322,056,452 54,474,544 162,390,631 Avg. Sent Length 17.7 28.4 27.7 21.5
Table 1: Statistics of corpora used to train word embeddings.
4 Experiments
4.1 Baseline experiment
We created 50- 100- and 300-dimensional word vectors for each corpus using the Skip-gram with Negative Sampling algorithm (Mikolov et al., 2013) with a window of 10 words, and 5 negative samples.
We tested the word vectors on the Rotten Tomatoes dataset (Pang and Lee, 2005), which contains 10662 annotated sentences. We train on 7996, leave 1066 as a development set and test on 1600.
In order to see how well these representations work on a different domain, we also tested them on the English OpeNER sentiment corpus (Agerri et al., 2013). Specifically, we take the subcorpus from the hotel domain. It contains 3709 opinion phrases annotated for opinion holder, opinion target and four levels of sentiment (Strong Positive, Positive, Negative and Strong Negative). Each training example is a tuple of the opinion holder, opinion target and sentiment phrase, such as (”we”, ”hotel”, ”didn’t like at all”). We train on 2780, leave 186 as a development set and test on 743. This dataset has a class imbalance, which means that macro f1 is a more appropriate metric.
Following the work of Iyyer et al. (2015), we use a Deep Averaging Network to perform sentiment classification. This neural bag-of-words model does not take the order of the words into consideration, but has proven to give results similar to more sophisticated approaches. Our datasets do not allow us to train on labeled phrases. Also the small size of the training data, especially in the OpeNER dataset, means that updating the word vectors while training the classifier actually hurts classification when using our task-specific vectors. Therefore, we do not update while training.
For each sentence or phrase in the datasets, we create a training example. A training example is the average of the word embeddings for each word in the sentence or phrase. If a word is not found in
our word embedding model, it is replaced with a generic ’unknown’ vector, which is randomly initialized. The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Figure 1: Accuracy of sentiment classifiers on Rotten Tomatoes dataset
As we can see, the embeddings trained on the much smaller Amazon corpus give consistently better results than the Wikipedia corpus on the RT dataset. However, the vectors trained on Wikipedia perform quite well and even outperform their Amazon trained counterparts on the OpeNER dataset. This is likely due to the fact that the domain for the OpeNER dataset is different (Hotel reviews) compared to the RT dataset (Movie Reviews).
4.2 Combining information from different sources
Given that vectors trained on task-specific data regularly outperform those trained on much larger generic datasets, we should ask ourselves if it is possible to combine both of these datasets to get even better results. We compare three methods:
1. Appending the task-specific dataset to the generic dataset and training one representation
5
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
Figure 2: Accuracy of sentiment classifiers on OpeNER dataset
2. Splicing the task-specific dataset into the generic dataset and training one representation
3. Training two separate representations and combining them through vector concatenation.
Appending involves simply adding the taskspecific Amazon Movie corpus to the Wikpedia corpus and training a single set of vectors on this data. This should improve the representations of those words that are important for the task, as they will receive more positive examples while training the vectors.
Splicing is similar to appending, but instead of adding the Amazon sentences, we splice them into the Wikipedia corpus. We alternate sentences from the two corpora until we have exhausted all of the Amazon sentences, after which we add the remaining Wikipedia sentences. As above, we train a single set of vectors.
For concatenation, we train one set of vectors on Wikipedia and a second on the Amazon Movie Corpus separately. Given two m dimensional vectors, we concatenate them, resulting in an m +m dimensional vector, in order to provide both views to the sentiment classifier. For a fair comparison, we concatenate vectors that are half as large as those of the other techniques. This technique may provide better representations for words that often appear in one corpus but not in the other.
Note that the embeddings in these three techniques were trained on exactly the same data, the only difference being the method of combining
this data. Our baseline vectors are trained only on the Wikipedia corpus. We also test the 50 dimensional sentiment embeddings (SSWEu) provided by Tang et. al (2014) (see Section 2.3). The results are shown in Table 2.
We can see that including task-specific data with any of the techniques tends to improve over the baseline. This in itself is not surprising. However, it is important to notice that the concatenation of two vectors trained on the two datasets separately always improve the macro f1 score.
4.3 How much task-specific data is needed in order to see benefits
Given that we can combine generic and taskspecific data to improve our feature space, we would like to know how much task-specific data is necessary to see these improvements. Therefore, we perform experiments on the RT dataset with increasing amounts of task-specific data. The results are shown in Figure 3.
As we can see from the results, we see improvements over the baseline after 10-12 million tokens. This could potentially benefit low-resource languages which often have access only to Wikipedia pages and little task-specific data.
5 Extracting task-specific information from generic datasets
Finally, we ask if there is a way to approximate this task-specific data given only large, generic corpora. This again is a situation that is very common among under-resourced languages. There-
6
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
RT OpeNER 50 100 200 300 50 100 200 300
Wikipedia Baseline acc 66.2 71.9 71.4 71.3 77.6 78.2 82.1 83.6 f1 59.8 72.4 .67.4 .67.5 37.2 36.7 39.8 40.6 SSWEu acc 66.3 – – – 81 – – – f1 56.5 – – – 39.4 – – – Amazon acc 73.8 76.3 76.7 76.9 73.5 73.8 77.8 76.9 f1 69.9 74.7 74.6 75.3 34.9 33.6 37.4 38 Appended acc 69.4 73.8 74.5 74.3 77.6 76.5 82.7 78.4 f1 65.1 75 72.5 72.8 36.9 35.8 40.5 36.4 Spliced acc 70.8 71.2 73.1 73.6 77.4 73.9 84.6 82.7 f1 62.5 73.4 71 70 37.2 32.9 41.4 39.9 Amazon + Wiki acc 74.4 75.2 75.9 75.9 64.2 65.7 69.4 72.3 f1 72.5 75 78 77.7 57.8 62.4 63.8 68
Table 2: Accuracy and F1 of sentiment classifier with embeddings trained on Wikipedia and Amazon corpora with different techniques. For the OpeNER dataset, accuracy is the macro average. Bold indicates the highest performance and underline indicates those that beat the generic baseline.
fore, we extract the sentences labeled as subjective from the Wikipedia, Europarl and Multi UN corpora, referred to from here on as subj-Wikipedia, subj-Europarl, subj-MultiUN. We train word embeddings on each of these and test them as in Section 4.2. We also report macro-averaged f1 scores. Results are shown in Table 3.
We can see that by filtering the corpora for subjectivity, we lose a degree of accuracy, but gain in f1. The poor f1 scores of the Wikipedia baseline on the OpeNER dataset are due to the fact that the classifier nearly always chooses the two majority classes and completely ignores the others. Including more subjective information seems to ameliorate this situation. The improvements in f1 also coincide with the subjectivity level predicted by our method. This suggests that it is possible to predict the amount of improvement that you can gain by extracting subjective data from a generic dataset.
5.1 Lexical Overlap
Given that the classification error is still relatively large, our hypothesis was that many words which are important for classification are not found in the corpora used to train the word embeddings. In order to test this possibility, we found the lexical overlap in vocabulary between the corpora used to train the word embeddings and the RT and OpeNER corpora. Let Vtr be the set of words in a training corpus and Vtest be the set of words in each test corpus test.
LexicalOverlap = |Vtest| ∩ |Vtr| |Vtest|
(2)
If the lexical overlap of the corpora used to train our representations (Wikipedia, Europarl, Multiun) and the datasets we use to test our classifier (RT, OpeNER) is small, this will negatively affect the results of the classifier, as it will lack necessary information during both training and testing. We also test for lexical diversity of the filtered subjectivity training corpora as a measure of vocabulary. We use the Average Type Token Ratio (ATTR) as a measure. Let k be a corpus, nk be a subset of n tokens of k, Vn = the vocabulary of n, and Tn = the tokens of n.
Average Type Token Ratio = 1
n ∗ N∑ n=1 |Vn| |Tn| (3)
We set n to 1000. The results are shown in Table 4.
As we can see in Table 4, the number of words that do not have a vector representation in the full Wikipedia model is much smaller than all other models. Therefore, the Wikipedia word embeddings have a larger vocabulary yet they do not always have a representation that is helpful for the task. The more subjective datasets may lack some vocabulary, but it seems that the representations that they have are able to overcome the sparsity.
7
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
RT OpeNER 50 100 200 300 50 100 200 300
Wikipedia Baseline acc 66.2 71.9 71.4 71.3 77.6 78.2 82.1 83.6 f1 59.8 72.4 67.4 67.5 37.2 36.7 39.8 40.6 subj-Wiki + Wiki acc 66.9 69.1 70.3 72.4 62.1 67.6 67.8 70.3 f1 67.5 71.8 74.6 75.5 51.2 58.3 57.9 60.8 subj-Multiun + Wiki acc 68.4 69.6 69.3 73.4 65.1 68.3 68.2 71 f1 69 73.2 74 75.6 60.2 60.7 57.7 62.8 subj-Europarl + Wiki acc 68.2 68.4 71.3 74.1 63.7 68.3 69.6 71.7 f1 69.7 73.7 75.5 76.2 56.9 59.5 66.3 63.4
Table 3: Accuracy and F1 scores of sentiment classifier trained on concatenation of filtered subjectivity vectors and wikipedia vectors. Bold indicates the highest performance and underline indicates those that beat the Wikipedia baseline.
Wiki Amazon subj-Wiki subj-MulUN subj-Euro # tokens 1.8B˜ 162M˜ 24M˜ 43M˜ 33M˜ ATTR 41.5 39.9 44.3 36.7 39.4 Overlap RT-Train 83.7 61.6 73.3 70.9 68.6 Overlap RT-Test 87.5 69.9 76.7 75.3 74 Overlap OpeNER-Train 89.1 70.3 81.3 78.1 75 Overlap OpeNER-Test 96 89.1 92 90 90
Table 4: Average Type/Token ratio (ATTR) and overlap with test vocabulary in each training corpus.
5.2 Types of missing words
After seeing the number of words which were missing, we decided to study these qualitatively. We collected a list of the words that appear in the RT and OpeNER datasets which were not found in the embeddings.
A revision of each part of speech category revealed that the nouns not found in the embeddings models were often misspellings of more common nouns (fantasi, alientation) or creative use of language (vidgame, dateflick, splatterfests, artsploitation, witlessness, drippiness, naturedness, diciness, gooeyness, baaaaaaaad), both of which are important for categorization.
Even more important are the adjectives (unrecommendable, unsuspenseful, uncinematic, unslick, unfakeable, snazzy) and adverbs (heartwarmingly, dullingly, repellently, forgettably, uncharismatically, appallingly) which are not found in these models. These are words that often carry the most sentiment information in a sentence. The number of words lost due to filtering for subjectivity also seems to correlate with the performance of each model, as the subj-Europarl model lost the least number of wordforms and performed the best among the filtered corpora.
6 Experiments on under-resourced languages
In order to confirm our theory that this technique can improve representations for under-resourced languages, we perform the same concatenation experiment as in Section 4.2 but with Catalan data. The Catalan Wikipedia used in this experiment was from a wikipedia dump in January, 2016 and contains 182 million tokens. In order to gather task-specific data, we scraped 21,778 reviews in Catalan from www.booking.com which contain a total 4,161,719 tokens. We preprocessed both datasets in a similar fashion (lowercased, sentence tokenized, tokenized) using Freeling (Padró and Stanilovsky, 2012).
We test this on the Catalan Aspect-level Sentiment Dataset. This dataset was compiled from 879 Booking.com reviews collected in December of 2016. Three annotators annotated opinion holders, opinion targets, and four levels of sentiment (Strong Positive, Positive, Negative and Strong Negative). Statistics are shown in Table 5.
The results on the Catalan dataset (see Table 6) suggest that under-resourced languages benefit more from concatenating vectors trained separately than languages such as English. This is
8
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
Training Dev Test Num. phrases 922 62 248 Strong Pos 27.3% 25.8% 27.4% Pos 34.2% 33.9% 34.3% Neg 33.3% 33.9% 33% Strong Neg 5.2% 6.5% 5.2%
Table 5: Statistics of the Catalan Aspect-level Sentiment Dataset.
50 100 200 300 Wikipedia 44.9 61 72.2 75.4 Booking 55.61 62 72.7 69.5 Appended 61.4 60.4 72.2 70.6 Spliced 49.2 62 70.58 75.4 Booking + Wiki 59.4 62.6 73.3 75.4
Table 6: Macro average of classification scores on the Catalan Aspect-level Sentiment Dataset (4 class). Bold indicates the highest performance and underline indicates those that beat the generic baseline.
most likely due to the size and breadth of the English Wikipedia corpus. Therefore, for languages that do not have large, broad Wikipedia, we recommend training separate vectors and concatenating them afterwards.
7 Conclusion and Future Work
In this paper, we have explored several methods for improving sentiment analysis using word embeddings. First, we demonstrated that the subjectivity of a corpus is a viable method to determine the usefulness of a corpus for the task of sentiment analysis. We then show that concatenation of vectors trained on generic and taskspecific datasets outperforms a single representation trained on both datasets. We also showed that it is possible to approximate task-specific data by extracting subjective portions from generic corpora. Finally, we showed that it is possible to use this technique to improve sentiment classification for under-resourced languages, even if there is little task-specific data available.
Instead of relying on subjectivity as metric, one could naturally use polarity to determine the usefulness of a passage for training embeddings for a sentiment related task. By removing neutral passages and keeping only those with positive or negative sentiment, it may be possible to achieve similar results to ours. We plan to explore this possi-
bility in the future. We also believe that these techniques could improve results on tasks other than sentiment analysis, but we leave this for future work.

Review:
This paper compares different ways of inducing embeddings for the task of polarity classification. The authors focus on different types of corpora and find that not necessarily the largest corpus provides the most appropriate embeddings for their particular task but it is more effective to consider a corpus (or subcorpus) in which a higher concentration of subjective content can be found. The latter type of data are also referred to as  task-specific data . Moreover, the authors compare different embeddings that combine information from  task-specific  corpora and generic corpora. A combination outperforms embeddings just drawn from a single corpus. This combination is not only evaluated on English but also on a less resourced language (i.e. Catalan).  - Strengths: The paper addresses an important aspect of sentiment analysis, namely how to appropriately induce embeddings for training supervised classifers for polarity classification. The paper is well-structured and well-written. The major claims made by the authors are sufficiently supported by their experiments.  - Weaknesses: The outcome of the experiments is very predictable. The methods that are employed are very simple and ad-hoc. I found hardly any new idea in that paper. Neither are there any significant lessons that the reader learns about embeddings or sentiment analysis. The main idea (i.e. focusing on more task-specific data for training more accurate embeddings) was already published in the context of named-entity recognition by Joshi et al. (2015). The additions made in this paper are very incremental in nature.  I find some of the experiments inconclusive as (apparently) no statistical signficance testing between different classifiers has been carried out. In Tables 2, 3 and 6, various classifier configurations produce very similar scores. In such cases, only statistical signficance testing can really give a proper indication whether these difference are meaningful. For instance, in Table 3 on the left half reporting results on RT, one may wonder whether there is a significant difference between  Wikipedia Baseline  and any of the combinations. Furthermore, one doubts whether there is any signficant difference between the different combinations (i.e. either using  subj-Wiki ,  subj-Multiun  or  subj-Europarl ) in that table. The improvement by focusing on subjective subsets is plausible in general. However, I wonder whether in real life, in particular, a situation in which resources are sparse this is very helpful. Doing a pre-selection with OpinionFinder is some pre-processing step which will not be possible in most languages other than English. There are no equivalent tools or fine-grained datasets on which such functionality could be learnt. The fact that in the experiments for Catalan, this information is not considered proves that.   Minor details:  - lines 329-334: The discussion of this dataset is confusing. I thought the task is plain polarity classification but the authors here also refer to  opinion holder  and  opinion targets . If these information are not relevant to the experiments carried out in this paper, then they should not be mentioned here.  - lines 431-437: The variation of  splicing  that the authors explain is not very well motivated. First, why do we need this? In how far should this be more effective than simple  appending ?  - lines 521-522: How is the subjective information isolated for these configurations? I assume the authors here again employ OpinionFinder? However, there is no explicit mention of this here.  - lines 580-588: The definitions of variables do not properly match the formula (i.e. Equation 3). I do not find n_k in Equation 3.  - lines 689-695: Similar to lines 329-334 it is unclear what precise task is carried out. Do the authors take opinion holders and targets in consideration?  ***AFTER AUTHORS' RESPONSE*** Thank you very much for these clarifying remarks. I do not follow your explanations regarding the incorporation of opinion holders and targets, though.  Overall, I will not change my scores since I think that this work lacks sufficient novelty (the things the authors raised in their response are just insufficient to me). This submission is too incremental in nature.