Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:17:45.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of data-driven induction of semantic spaces and traditional classifiers for sarcasm detection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2019

Mattia Antonino Di Gangi ,
Giosué Lo Bosco Open the ORCID record for Giosué Lo Bosco [Opens in a new window]  and
Giovanni Pilato
Mattia Antonino Di Gangi
Affiliation:
Fondazione Bruno Kessler and Università degli Studi di Trento, Trento, Italy
Giosué Lo Bosco*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Giovanni Pilato
Affiliation:
Italian National Research Council, ICAR-CNR, Istituto di Calcolo e Reti ad alte prestazioni, Palermo, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Irony and sarcasm are two complex linguistic phenomena that are widely used in everyday language and especially over the social media, but they represent two serious issues for automated text understanding. Many labeled corpora have been extracted from several sources to accomplish this task, and it seems that sarcasm is conveyed in different ways for different domains. Nonetheless, very little work has been done for comparing different methods among the available corpora. Furthermore, usually, each author collects and uses their own datasets to evaluate his own method. In this paper, we show that sarcasm detection can be tackled by applying classical machine-learning algorithms to input texts sub-symbolically represented in a Latent Semantic space. The main consequence is that our studies establish both reference datasets and baselines for the sarcasm detection problem that could serve the scientific community to test newly proposed methods.

Keywords

natural language processingsemantic spacesmachine learningsarcasm detectionirony detection
Type
Article
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 257 - 285
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, R., Ecker, B., Anand, P. and Walker, M. (2016). Internet Argument Corpus 2.0: An SQL schema for dialogic social media and the corpora to go with it. In Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), 2016.Google Scholar
Altszyler, E., Sigman, M. and Slezak, D.F. (2016). Comparative study of LSA vs Word2vec embeddings in small corpora: a case study in dreams database. arXiv preprint: 1610.01520.Google Scholar
Amir, S., Wallace, B.C., Lyu, H., Carvalho, P. and Silva, M.J. (2016). Modelling context with user embeddings for sarcasm detection in social media. arXiv preprint: 1607.00976.Google Scholar
Astudillo, R., Amir, S., Ling, W., Silva, M. and Trancoso, I. (2015). Learning word representations from scarce and noisy data with embedding subspaces. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Vol. 1, Long Papers, pp. 1074–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S. (2007). Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness: Irony in Language and Thought. New York: Routledge, pp. 135–174.Google Scholar
Attardo, S. (2010). Irony: Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, pp. 341–343.Google Scholar
Bamman, D. and Smith, N.A. (2015). Contextualized sarcasm detection on twitter. In Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media.Google Scholar
Baziotis, C., Athanasiou, N., Papalampidi, P., Kolovou, A., Paraskevopoulos, G., Ellinas, N. and Potamianos, A. (2018). NTUA-SLP at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Tracking ironic tweets using ensembles of word and character level Attentive RNNs. In 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 613–621.Google Scholar
Bellegarda, J.R. (1998). A multispan language modelling framework for large vocabulary speech recognition. IEEE Transactions on Speech and Audio processing 6(5), 456–457.Google Scholar
Bellegarda, J.R. (1998). Exploiting both local and global constraints for multi-span statistical language modeling. ICASSP 2, 677–680.Google Scholar
Bharti, S.K., Babu, K.S. and Jena, S.K. (2015). Parsing-based sarcasm sentiment recognition in Twitter data. In IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2015, pp. 1373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiman, L. (2011). Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1), 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C.J. and Olshen, R.A. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Buschmeier, K., Cimiano, P. and Klinger, R. (2014). An impact analysis of features in a classification approach to irony detection in product reviews. In 5th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, pp. 42–9.Google Scholar
Chen, T. and Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting System. In 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), 2016, pp. 785–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiavetta, F., Lo Bosco, G. and Pilato, G. (2016). A lexicon-based approach for sentiment classification of Amazon books reviews in Italian language. In 12th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST), 2016, Vol. 2, pp. 159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiavetta, F., Lo Bosco, G. and Pilato, G. (2017). A layered architecture for sentiment classification of products reviews in Italian language. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing 292, 120–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K. and Kuksa, P. (2011). Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2493–2537.Google Scholar
Cristianini, N. and Shawe-Taylor, J. (2000). An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-Based Learning Methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S.A., Dascalu, M. and McNamarac, D.S. (2017). How important is size? An Investigation of corpus size and meaning in both latent semantic analysis and latent Dirichlet allocation. In 30th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS), 2017, AAAI Press, pp. 293–296.Google Scholar
Davidov, D., Tsur, O. and Rappoport, A. (2010). Semi-supervised recognition of sarcastic sentences in twitter and amazon. In 14th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 107–116.Google Scholar
Deerwester, S., Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K. and Harshman, R. (1990). Indexing by latent semantic analysis. Journal of the American society for information science 41(6), 391.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumais, S.T., Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Deerwester, S. and Harshman, R. (May, 1988). Using latent semantic analysis to improve access to textual information. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp. 281–285.Google Scholar
Fan, R.E., Chang, K.W., Hsieh, C.J., Wang, X.R. and Lin, C.J. (2008). LIBLINEAR: A library for large linear classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(Aug), 1871–1874.Google Scholar
Filatova, E. (2012). Irony and sarcasm: Corpus generation and analysis using crowdsourcing. In 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 2012, pp. 392–398.Google Scholar
Foltz, P.W. and Dumais, S.T. (1992). An analysis of information filtering methods. Communications of the ACM 35(12), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, D., Guo, W. and Muresan, S. (2015). Sarcastic or not: Word embeddings to predict the literal or sarcastic meaning of words. In 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1003–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, A. and Veale, T. (2015). Fracking sarcasm using neural network. In 7th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, pp. 161–169.Google Scholar
Golub, G.H. and Van Loan, C.F. (1996). Matrix Computations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
González, J.Á., Hurtado, L.F. and Pla, F. (2018). ELiRF-UPV at SemEval-2018 Tasks 1 and 3: Affect and irony detection in tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 565–569.Google Scholar
González-Ibánez, R., Muresan, S. and Wacholder, N. (2011). Identifying sarcasm in twitter: a closer look. In 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Short papers, Vol. 2. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 581–586.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1954). Distributional structure. WORD 10(23), 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irazù Hernàndez Farías, D., Patti, V. and Rosso, P. (2016). Irony detection in Twitter: The role of affective content. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 16(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A., Sharma, V. and Bhattacharyya, P. (2015). Harnessing context incongruity for sarcasm detection. In 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 757–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A., Tripathi, V., Patel, K., Bhattacharyya, P. and Carman, M. (2016). Are word embedding-based features useful for sarcasm detection? In 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Joshi, A., Bhattacharyya, P. and Carman, M. (2017). Automatic sarcasm detection: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys 50(5), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A., Bhattacharyya, P. and Carman, M. (2018). Investigations in Computational Sarcasm. (Cognitive Systems Monographs 37). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justo, R., Corcoran, T., Lukin, S. M., Walker, M. and Torres, M.I. (2014). Extracting relevant knowledge for the detection of sarcasm and nastiness in the social web. Knowledge-Based Systems 69, 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koeman, J. and Rea, W. (2014). How does latent semantic analysis work? A visualisation approach. arXiv 1402.0543.Google Scholar
Kotsiantis, S.B. (2013). Decision trees: a recent overview. Artificial Intelligence Review 39(4), 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuz, R. and Glucksberg, S. (1989). How to be sarcastic: The echoic reminder theory of verbal irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology General 118(4), 374–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T.K. (1999). Latent semantic analysis: A theory of the psychology of language and mind. Discourse Processes 27(3), 303–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T.K., Foltz, P.W. and Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25(2–3), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C.J., Weng, R.C. and Keerthi, S.S. (2008). Trust region newton methods for large-scale logistic regression. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning. ACM, 2007.Google Scholar
Ling, J. and Klinger, R. (2016). An empirical, quantitative analysis of the differences between sarcasm and irony. In European Semantic Web Conference, 2016, pp. 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukin, S. and Walker, M. (2013). Really? well. apparently bootstrapping improves the performance of sarcasm and nastiness classifiers for online dialogue, Proceedings of the Workshop on Language Analysis in Social Media, pp. 30–40.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. and Greenwood, M.A. (2014). Who cares about sarcastic tweets? investigating the impact of sarcasm on sentiment analysis. In 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 2014, pp. 4238–4243.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edn. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S. and Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In 27th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2013, pp. 3111–3119.Google Scholar
Oraby, S., Harrison, V., Reed, L., Hernandez, E., Riloff, E. and Walker, M. (2016). Creating and characterizing a diverse corpus of sarcasm in dialogue. In 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pamungkas, E.W. and Patti, V. (2018). #NonDicevoSulSerio at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Exploiting emojis and affective content for irony detection in English tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 649–54.Google Scholar
Peled, L. and Reichart, R. (2017). Sarcasm SIGN: Interpreting sarcasm with sentiment based monolingual machine translation. In 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 1, pp. 1690–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, J., Socher, R. and Manning, C. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 1532–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picard, R. (1995). Affective computing. M.I.T. Media Laboratory Perceptual Computing Section. Technical report. 321. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pilato, G. and Vassallo, G. (2015). TSVD as a statistical estimator in the latent semantic analysis paradigm. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing 3(2), 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poria, S., Cambria, E., Hazarika, D. and Vij, P. (2016). A deeper look into sarcastic tweets using deep convolutional neural networks. In 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING), 2016, pp. 1601–12.Google Scholar
Rangwani, H., Kulshreshtha, D. and Singh, A.K. (2018). NLPRL-IITBHU at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Combining linguistic features and emoji pre-trained CNN for irony detection in tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 638–642.Google Scholar
Reyes, A. and Rosso, P. (2011). Mining subjective knowledge from customer reviews: A Specific case of irony detection. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity and Sentiment Analysis (WASSA), 2011, pp. 118–124.Google Scholar
Reyes, A., Rosso, P. and Veale, T. (2013). A multidimensional approach for detecting irony in twitter. Language Resources and Evaluation 47(1), 239–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyes, A. and Rosso, P. (2014). On the difficulty of automatically detecting irony: beyond a simple case of negation. Knowledge and Information Systems 40(3), 595–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riloff, E., Qadir, A., Surve, P., De Silva, L., Gilbert, N. and Huang, R. (2013). Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situation. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2013, pp. 704–14.Google Scholar
Rohanian, O., Taslimipoor, S., Evans, R. and Mitkov, R. (2018). WLV at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Dissecting tweets in search of irony. IN Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 553–559.Google Scholar
Juliano, E.S., Andre, F., Brian, D. and Siegfried, H. (2016). A compositional-distributional semantic model for searching complex entity categories. In Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (SEM 2016), pp. 199–208Google Scholar
Salton, G. and Buckley, C. (1988). Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing & Management 24(5), 513–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparck Jones, K. (1972). A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of Documentation 28(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulis, E., Irazù Hernàndez Farías, D., Rosso, P., Patti, V. and Ruffo, G. (2016). Figurative messages and affect in Twitter: Differences between #irony, #sarcasm and #not. Knowledge-Based Systems 108, 132–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsur, O., Davidov, D. and Rappoport, A. (2010). ICWSM—a great catchy name: Semi-supervised recognition of sarcastic sentences in online product reviews. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM), 2010.Google Scholar
Turney, P.D. and Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37, 141–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hee, C., Lefever, E. and Hoste, V. (2018). Semeval-2018 task 3: Irony detection in English tweets. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation.Google Scholar
Vassallo, G., Pilato, G., Augello, A. and Gaglio, S. (2010). Phase coherence in conceptual spaces for conversational agents. Semantic Computing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 357–371.Google Scholar
Vu, T., Nguyen, D.Q., Vu, X.S., Nguyen, D.Q., Catt, M. and Trenell, M. (2018). NIHRIO at SemEval-2018 Task 3: A simple and accurate neural network model for irony detection in Twitter. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 525–530.Google Scholar
Walker, M.A., Fox Tree, J.E., Anand, P., Abbott, R. and King, J. (2012). A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), 2012, pp. 812–817.Google Scholar
Wallace, B.C., Choe, D.K., Kertz, L. and Charniak, E. (2014). Humans require context to infer ironic intent (so computers probably do, too). In 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 512–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, P-Y.A. (2013). #Irony or #Sarcasm– a quantitative and qualitative study based on Twitter. In 27th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information, and Computation, pp. 349–356.Google Scholar
Wang, Z., Wu, Z., Wang, R. and Ren, Y. (2015). Twitter sarcasm detection exploiting a context-based model. In International Conference on Web Information Systems Engineering, pp. 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzel, L., Prati, R.C. and Aguiar, R.F. (2016). The comprehension of figurative language: What is the influence of irony and sarcasm on NLP techniques? In Sentiment Analysis and Ontology Engineering: Studies in Computational Intelligence. Cham: Springer, pp. 639.Google Scholar
Wu, C., Wu, F., Wu, S., Liu, J., Yuan, Z. and Huang, Y. (2018). THU_NGN at SemEval-2018 Task 3: Tweet irony detection with densely connected LSTM and multi-task learning. In Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 51–56.Google Scholar