Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016) 2016
DOI: 10.18653/v1/s16-1005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CUFE at SemEval-2016 Task 4: A Gated Recurrent Model for Sentiment Classification

Abstract: In this paper we describe a deep learning system that has been built for SemEval 2016 Task4 (Subtask A and B). In this work we trained a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) neural network model on top of two sets of word embeddings: (a) general word embeddings generated from unsupervised neural language model; and (b) task specific word embeddings generated from supervised neural language model that was trained to classify tweets into positive and negative categories. We also added a method for analyzing and splitting… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both systems use word embeddings but with difference, in first CNN system's [4], so the word embeddings with 50M unsupervised to training word2vec [5,6], and 10M supervised to train CNN, but in the second, the GRU with the first word embeddings with 20.5M to train and the second set was obtained by training on supervised data using another GRU model, and add method for splitting hashtags and insert them in the body, before forwarding data in this step [7]. Therefore the amount of training data is very important without forgetting the quality with the treatment of tweets before the passes to the learning phase, CNN has taken a step forward with the amount of data on the other hand there is an equality with the pre-treatment of the text e.g.…”
Section: Data Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Both systems use word embeddings but with difference, in first CNN system's [4], so the word embeddings with 50M unsupervised to training word2vec [5,6], and 10M supervised to train CNN, but in the second, the GRU with the first word embeddings with 20.5M to train and the second set was obtained by training on supervised data using another GRU model, and add method for splitting hashtags and insert them in the body, before forwarding data in this step [7]. Therefore the amount of training data is very important without forgetting the quality with the treatment of tweets before the passes to the learning phase, CNN has taken a step forward with the amount of data on the other hand there is an equality with the pre-treatment of the text e.g.…”
Section: Data Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Which it can capture long semantic patterns without tuning the model parameter, unlike CNN models where the model depends on the length of the convolutional feature maps for capturing long patterns, Which it achieved superior performance to CNNs [7]. And the network architecture is composed of a word embeddings layer, a merge layer, dropout layers, a GRU layer, a hyperbolic tangent tang layer and a soft-max classification layer.…”
Section: Authorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The model performs well on three-point scale sentiment classification, while performing poorly on five-point scale sentiment classification. A GRU-based model with two kinds of embedding used for general and taskspecific purpose can be more efficient than CNN models (Nabil et al, 2016 3 Experiment…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Twitter is a huge microblogging service with more than 500 million tweets per day from different locations of the world and in different languages (Saif and Felipe, 2017). Tweets are often used to convey ones emotions, opinions towards products, and stance over issues (Nabil et al, 2016). Automatically detecting emotion intensities in tweets has several applications, including commerce (Jansen et al, 2009), crisis management (Verma et al, 2011), tracking brand and product perception, tracking support for issues and policies, and tracking public health and well-being (Chew and Eysenbach, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%