The aim is to evaluate sentiment polarity (Negative/Positive) at several levels of granularity:
Sentiment prediction can be supervised, semi-supervised or unsupervised.
Supervised approaches rely on annotated datasets. Given the strong domain specificity, it is important that a large corpus from the target domain is available. When not available, domain adaptation methods can be used, that rely on a large out-of-domain corpus and a small supplementary target-domain annotated corpus.
Unsupervised methods rely on sentiment dictionaries: large lists of words with scores quantifying their polarity. Mapping to dictionary and aggregation statistics are used to evaluate sentiment in free text.
Semi-supervised approaches rely on a small set of annotated texts or small polarity dictionaries, that are expanded by either bootstrap methods, or by using external knowledge-bases like Wordnet.
Our tagging services in intended for generic documents, without specified domain (at least in the early stages). Therefore we opted for an unsupervised approach. We composed a large sentiment dictionary from several open sources, as described below.
We assembled a sentiment dictionary from three sources:
From each of the above sources we extracted scores in an unique format, namely one score that is between 0 and 1, where the polarity is positive if score is close to 1, and negative, if it is close to 0. It can be expressed also as two scores, positive and negative, that sum up to 1.
Aggregation into one score:
Score(w) = 0.4 score_SentiWordNet(w) + 0.4 score_MPQA(w) + 0.2 score_IMDB(w)
Pipeline for document sentiment:
Pipeline for entity sentiment: