ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)
Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
Agents that argue and explain classifications
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Elements of Argumentation
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence
Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence
TAFA'11 Proceedings of the First international conference on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation
IJCAI'11 Proceedings of the Twenty-Second international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume Volume Three
Sentiment Analysis of Stock Market News with Semi-supervised Learning
ICIS '12 Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/ACIS 11th International Conference on Computer and Information Science
RETRACTED: Sentiment Analysis in Decision Sciences Research: An Illustration to IT Governance
Decision Support Systems
Techniques and applications for sentiment analysis
Communications of the ACM
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Web 2.0 technologies have resulted in an exponential growth of text-based opinions coming from different sources (such as online news media, microblogging platforms, social networks, online review systems, etc.). The assessment of such opinions has gained considerable interest within several research communities in Computer Science, particularly in the context of modelling decision making processes. In this context, the scientific study of emotions in opinions associated with a given topic has become particularly relevant. Some approaches for assessing emotions in text-based opinions have been developed, resulting in promising software tools for sentiment analysis. In spite of the existence of such tools, assessing and contrasting text-based opinions is indeed a difficult task. On the one hand, complex opinions are built in many cases bottom up, emerging by aggregation from individual opinions posted online. On the other hand, contradictory and potentially inconsistent information might arise when contrasting such complex opinions. This article introduces an argument-based framework which allows to mine text-based opinions based on incrementally generated topics along with partially-ordered features, which provide a multidimensional comparison criterion. Given a topic, we will model an atomic opinion supporting it as a multiset (or bag) of terms. Atomic opinions can be aggregated, and related to alternative opinions, based on expanded topics. As a result, we will be able to obtain an "opinion analysis tree", rooted in the first original topic.