4.3 Article

A gradient boosted decision tree-based sentiment classification of twitter data

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0219691320500277

Keywords

Twitter; sentiment analysis; sentiment; classification; elephant herd optimization; gradient boosted decision tree and mapReduce

Ask authors/readers for more resources

People communicate their views, arguments and emotions about their everyday life on social media (SM) platforms (e.g. Twitter and Facebook). Twitter stands as an international micro-blogging service that features a brief message called tweets. Freestyle writing, incorrect grammar, typographical errors and abbreviations are some noises that occur in the text. Sentiment analysis (SA) centered on a tweet posted by the user, and also opinion mining (OM) of the customers review is another famous research topic. The texts are gathered from users' tweets by means of OM and automatic-SA centered on ternary classifications, namely positive, neutral and negative. It is very challenging for the researchers to ascertain sentiments as a result of its limited size, misspells, unstructured nature, abbreviations and slangs for Twitter data. This paper, with the aid of the Gradient Boosted Decision Tree classifier (GBDT), proposes an efficient SA and Sentiment Classification (SC) of Twitter data. Initially, the twitter data undergoes preprocessing. Next, the pre-processed data is processed using HDFS MapReduce. Now, the features are extracted from the processed data, and then efficient features are selected using the Improved Elephant Herd Optimization (I-EHO) technique. Now, score values are calculated for each of those chosen features and given to the classifier. At last, the GBDT classifier classifies the data as negative, positive, or neutral. Experiential results are analyzed and contrasted with the other conventional techniques to show the highest performance of the proposed method.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available