IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,260,661
Granted Patent B2
US 12,260,661 · App. 17/656,467 · Granted Mar 25, 2025

Topic classifier with sentiment analysis

Inventors: Takuya Goto (Kodaira, JP); Yoshiroh Kamiyama (Setagaya-ku, JP)
Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
G06V30/41G06N20/00G06V30/1912G06V30/1916
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,260,661
App. No.
17/656,467
Granted
Mar 25, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A method, system, and computer program product are disclosed. The method includes receiving a set of documents, selecting a topic, and determining that a first document from the set contains a topic label for the topic. The method also includes generating a topic sentiment score for the first document and adding the topic sentiment score to a set of training data. Additionally, the method includes determining that a second document from the set does not contain the topic label, generating an average sentiment score for the second document, and generating a bias factor for the average sentiment score.

Claims (74)

1. A method, comprising:

receiving a set of documents;

selecting a topic;

determining that a first document from the set contains a topic label for the topic;

generating a topic sentiment score for the first document;

adding the topic sentiment score to a set of training data;

determining that a second document from the set does not contain the topic label;

generating an average sentiment score for the second document; and

generating a bias factor for the average sentiment score.

2. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining that the bias factor is above a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is above the threshold bias factor, adding the average sentiment score to the set of training data.

3. The method of claim 2 , further comprising training a model for the topic with the set of training data.

4. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining that the bias factor is below a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is below the threshold bias factor, adding the average sentiment score to a set of validation data.

5. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining that the bias factor is below a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is below the threshold bias factor, generating a suggested sentiment score based on the average sentiment score.

6. The method of claim 5 , further comprising: based on whether user feedback has been received in response to the suggested sentiment score, adding the average sentiment score to the set of training data or a set of validation data.

7. The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

training a model for the topic with the set of training data; and

refining the model for the topic with the set of validation data.

8. The method of claim 1 , wherein:

the average sentiment score comprises a quantity of positive sentiments in the second document and a quantity of negative sentiments in the second document; and

the bias factor represents a magnitude of difference between the quantities.

9. A system, comprising:

a memory; and

a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to perform a method comprising:

receiving a set of documents;

selecting a topic;

determining that a first document from the set contains a topic label for the topic;

generating a topic sentiment score for the first document;

adding the topic sentiment score to a set of training data;

determining that a second document from the set does not contain the topic label;

generating an average sentiment score for the second document; and

generating a bias factor for the average sentiment score.

10. The system of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises:

determining that the bias factor is above a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is above the threshold bias factor, adding the average sentiment score to the set of training data.

11. The system of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises:

determining that the bias factor is below a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is below the threshold bias factor, adding the average sentiment score to a set of validation data.

12. The system of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises:

determining that the bias factor is below a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is below the threshold bias factor, generating a suggested sentiment score based on the average sentiment score.

13. The system of claim 12 , wherein the method further comprises: based on whether user feedback has been received in response to the suggested sentiment score, adding the average sentiment score to the set of training data or a set of validation data.

14. The system of claim 9 , wherein the method further comprises:

training a model for the topic with the set of training data; and

refining the model for the topic with the set of validation data.

15. The system of claim 9 , wherein:

the average sentiment score comprises a quantity of positive sentiments in the second document and a quantity of negative sentiments in the second document; and

the bias factor represents a magnitude of difference between the quantities.

16. A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause a device to perform a method, comprising:

receiving a set of documents;

selecting a topic;

determining that a first document from the set contains a topic label for the topic;

generating a topic sentiment score for the first document;

adding the topic sentiment score to a set of training data;

determining that a second document from the set does not contain the topic label;

generating an average sentiment score for the second document; and

generating a bias factor for the average sentiment score.

17. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein the method further comprises:

determining that the bias factor is above a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is above the threshold bias factor, adding the average sentiment score to the set of training data.

18. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein the method further comprises:

determining that the bias factor is below a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is below the threshold bias factor, adding the average sentiment score to a set of validation data.

19. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein the method further comprises:

determining that the bias factor is below a threshold bias factor; and

in response to the determining that the bias factor is below the threshold bias factor, generating a suggested sentiment score based on the average sentiment score.

20. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein:

the average sentiment score comprises a quantity of positive sentiments in the second document and a quantity of negative sentiments in the second document; and

the bias factor represents a magnitude of difference between the quantities.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 25, 2022
From: GOTO, TAKUYA; KAMIYAMA, YOSHIROH
To: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 059400/0026 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20230306770A1 · Sep 28, 2023
References Cited (32)
US 8041669B2 · Nigam et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 9020956B1 · Barr · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 9672475B2 · Clark · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 10977667B1 · L'Huillier · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11055119B1 · Silverstein · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11062094B2 · Kieser · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11068666B2 · Sengupta et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20090319342A1 · Shilman · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20110093417A1 · Nigam · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20150074020A1 · Arpat · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20150248424A1 · Berube · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160171386A1 · Brun et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160314191A1 · Markman et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20180165554A1 · Zhang · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180218335A1 · Jenkins · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190036835A1 · Chakra · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190057310A1 · Olmstead · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190108493A1 · Nelson · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20200004816A1 · Kieser · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200019611A1 · Tutubalina · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200403817A1 · Daredia · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210109994A1 · Sengupta · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210264480A1 · Silverstein · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20220036010A1 · Sengupta · 2022 [cited by examiner]
CN 112434164A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 112527963A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
JP 5283288B2 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
JP 2016530651A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
Tripathy, Abinash, Abhishek Anand, and Santanu Kumar Rath. “Document-level sentiment classification using hybrid machine learning approach.” Knowledge and Information Systems 53 (2017): 805-831. (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
O'Hare, Neil, et al. “Topic-dependent sentiment analysis of financial blogs.” Proceedings of the 1st international CIKM workshop on Topic-sentiment analysis for mass opinion. 2009. (Year: 2009). [cited by examiner]
Lin et al., “Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis,” https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1645953.1646003, CIKM 09: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Nov. 2009, pp. 3… [cited by applicant]
Mell et al., “The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing,” Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Special Publication 800-145, Sep. 2011, 7 pgs. [cited by applicant]