4.7 Article

A multiobjective weighted voting ensemble classifier based on differential evolution algorithm for text sentiment classification

期刊

EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 1-16

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.06.005

关键词

Sentiment analysis; Ensemble learning; Weighted majority voting; Multiobjective optimization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Typically performed by supervised machine learning algorithms, sentiment analysis is highly useful for extracting subjective information from text documents online. Most approaches that use ensemble learning paradigms toward sentiment analysis involve feature engineering in order to enhance the predictive performance. In response, we sought to develop a paradigm of a multiobjective, optimization-based weighted voting scheme to assign appropriate weight values to classifiers and each output class based on the predictive performance of classification algorithms, all to enhance the predictive performance of sentiment classification. The proposed ensemble method is based on static classifier selection involving majority voting error and forward search, as well as a multiobjective differential evolution algorithm. Based on the static classifier selection scheme, our proposed ensemble method incorporates Bayesian logistic regression, naive Bayes, linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, and support vector machines as base learners, whose performance in terms of precision and recall values determines weight adjustment. Our experimental analysis of classification tasks, including sentiment analysis, software defect prediction, credit risk modeling, spam filtering, and semantic mapping, suggests that the proposed classification scheme can predict better than conventional ensemble learning methods such as AdaBoost, bagging, random subspace, and majority voting. Of all datasets examined, the laptop dataset showed the best classification accuracy (98.86%). (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据