| Literature DB >> 30634527 |
Farman Ali1, Shaker El-Sappagh2,3, Daehan Kwak4.
Abstract
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSs) utilize a sensor network-based system to gather and interpret traffic information. In addition, mobility users utilize mobile applications to collect transport information for safe traveling. However, these types of information are not sufficient to examine all aspects of the transportation networks. Therefore, both ITSs and mobility users need a smart approach and social media data, which can help ITSs examine transport services, support traffic and control management, and help mobility users travel safely. People utilize social networks to share their thoughts and opinions regarding transportation, which are useful for ITSs and travelers. However, user-generated text on social media is short in length, unstructured, and covers a broad range of dynamic topics. The application of recent Machine Learning (ML) approach is inefficient for extracting relevant features from unstructured data, detecting word polarity of features, and classifying the sentiment of features correctly. In addition, ML classifiers consistently miss the semantic feature of the word meaning. A novel fuzzy ontology-based semantic knowledge with Word2vec model is proposed to improve the task of transportation features extraction and text classification using the Bi-directional Long Short-Term Memory (Bi-LSTM) approach. The proposed fuzzy ontology describes semantic knowledge about entities and features and their relation in the transportation domain. Fuzzy ontology and smart methodology are developed in Web Ontology Language and Java, respectively. By utilizing word embedding with fuzzy ontology as a representation of text, Bi-LSTM shows satisfactory improvement in both the extraction of features and the classification of the unstructured text of social media.Entities:
Keywords: feature extraction; intelligent transportation system; sentiment classification; social network
Year: 2019 PMID: 30634527 PMCID: PMC6358771 DOI: 10.3390/s19020234
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Proposed system architecture.
Figure 2SVM-based data filtering.
Assigning polarity scores to words and sentences.
| Example Sentence | Opinion Word | Word Polarity Score | Sentence Final Score | Sentiment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Just saw a | terrible | −0.625 | −1.06 | Negative |
| accident | −0.437 | |||
| closed | −0.47 | −1.75 | Negative | |
| injured | −0.62 | |||
| crash | −0.23 | |||
| accident | −0.437 | |||
| temporary | 0.12 | 0.5 | Positive | |
| hopefully | 0.5 | |||
| start | −0.12 |
Figure 3Trained skip-gram model for transport data.
Figure 4Ontology of transportation features.
Figure 5Traditional RNN and time domain RNN.
Figure 6LSTM unit.
Figure 7Word embedding and LSTM-based text classification.
The proposed system in comparison with other approaches in terms of feature extraction.
| Transportation Features/Entities | Ontology + tf-idf | Ontology + n-gram | Ontology + LDA | Fuzzy Ontology + Word2vec |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Road | 61 | 81 | 85 | 96 |
| Accident | 65 | 85 | 83 | 96 |
| Vehicle | 70 | 78 | 90 | 98 |
| Traffic | 74 | 74 | 88 | 96 |
| Safety | 72 | 77 | 80 | 93 |
| Location | 64 | 79 | 77 | 93 |
| Person | 67 | 73 | 75 | 93 |
Classification accuracy of Bi-LSTM with different number of neurons.
| Neurons | Precision | Recall | Function Measure | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 72.1 | 71.9 | 71.8 | 71.8 |
| 100 | 76.3 | 76.0 | 76.0 | 76.0 |
| 150 | 82.5 | 82.0 | 82.0 | 82.0 |
| 200 | 88.0 | 86.0 | 87.0 | 84.0 |
| 250 | 83.6 | 83.2 | 83.2 | 83.2 |
| 300 | 83.3 | 83.7 | 84.0 | 83.0 |
Sentiment classification performance of the different methods.
| Methods | Precision | Recall | Function Measure | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology + tf-idf + SWN + SVM [ | 81 | 71 | 76 | 71 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + tf-idf + SWN + CNN | 65 | 64 | 63 | 64 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + tf-idf + SWN + RNN | 67 | 66 | 66 | 66 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + n-gram + SWN + SVM [ | 84 | 80 | 82 | 78 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + n-gram + SWN + CNN | 66 | 62 | 60 | 62 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + n-gram + SWN + RNN | 70 | 67 | 66 | 67 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + LDA + SWN + SVM | 76 | 73 | 72 | 73 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + LDA + SWN + CNN | 77 | 74 | 75 | 75 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + LDA + SWN + RNN | 79 | 77 | 76 | 76 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + SWN + Word2vec + SVM | 72 | 74 | 73 | 71 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + SWN + Word2vec + CNN | 69 | 88 | 77 | 72 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + SWN + Word2vec + RNN | 80 | 82 | 81 | 80 |
| Fuzzy Ontology + SWN + Word2vec + Bi-LSTM | 88 | 86 | 87 | 84 |
Figure 8Accuracy of different embedding dimensional.
Figure 9Classifier accuracy with different number of epochs.
Figure 10Classification accuracy of different baseline models with word embedding models.