FCKT: Fine-Grained Cross-Task Knowledge Transfer with Semantic Contrastive Learning for Targeted Sentiment Analysis

Fuzhen Zhuang; Kepeng Xu; Meng Yuan; Wei Chen; Zhao Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

FCKT: Fine-Grained Cross-Task Knowledge Transfer with Semantic Contrastive Learning for Targeted Sentiment Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that fine-grained, aspect-level knowledge transfer—feeding predicted aspect-boundary distributions into sentiment classification and sharpening boundaries with token-level contrastive learning—mitigates negative transfer…

desk verdict A plausible incremental ABSA method with a real contrastive/alternating core, but the sentence-splitting justification is invalid and the loss definition conflicts with the algorithm. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21040 v2 pith:7TIFPEYV submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CL cs.AI

Wei Chen , Zhao Zhang , Meng Yuan , Kepeng Xu , Fuzhen Zhuang This is my paper

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords targetedsentimentanalysisaspectextractionclassificationfine-grainedknowledgetransfertoken-levelcontrastivelearningmulti-tasklargelanguagemodelsnegative

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that targeted sentiment analysis (TSA) benefits from treating knowledge transfer between aspect extraction and sentiment prediction at the level of individual aspects, rather than aligning the two tasks coarsely in latent space. It proposes FCKT, which feeds predicted aspect-boundary distributions into the sentiment classifier as an expected span representation, so sentiment gradients flow back into boundary detection, and adds a token-level contrastive loss that pulls start and end tokens of the same aspect together and pushes apart tokens from unrelated aspects. On Laptop, Restaurant, and Tweets, FCKT reports the highest TSA F1 (0.7144, 0.8153, 0.6225), an average gain of about 1.38% over the previous state-of-the-art model, and it outperforms GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4o under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting. If the claim is right, task-specific span-based models can still beat much larger language models on fine-grained sentiment tasks by exploiting the dependency structure between sub-tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the distributional aspect-span expectation: rather than extracting a discrete aspect and classifying it, FCKT averages the hidden states of all spans whose start and end are predicted by the boundary MLPs, $\hat{y}^{(\ell)} = C_\theta\!\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=i}^{\min(i+h,n)}\hat{p}_{i,s}\,\hat{p}_{j,e}\sum_{k=i}^{j}H_k\right)$, with $h$ a maximum aspect length. This makes sentiment classification differentiable with respect to boundary probabilities, so sentiment loss can supervise aspect extraction (and vice versa) in one end-to-end pass, while keeping computation at $O(nh)$ instead of $O(n^2)$. Two auxiliary mechanisms carry the argument: an InfoNCE-style token-level semantic contrastive loss that treats start/end tokens of the same aspect as positive pairs and tokens from unrelated aspects as negative pairs, and an alternating training ratio $\xi$ that mixes ground-truth span inputs with predicted-boundary inputs in the sentiment loss. The paper's identity claim is that splitting multi-aspect sentences into single-aspect sentences preserves the training objective, stated as $L_{\mathrm{mul}} \propto L_{\mathrm{sep}}$ in Appendix A.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the central claim by training FCKT on the original multi-aspect sentences without the Appendix A splitting preprocessing, holding all hyperparameters fixed, and comparing TSA F1 to the reported numbers; a large drop would mean the sentence-splitting change of loss, not fine-grained transfer, drives the gains. A second, purely computational check is to evaluate Eq. (13) directly on a batch with multi-aspect sentences, computing $L_{\mathrm{mul}}$ and $L_{\mathrm{sep}}$ under matched model parameters and verifying whether $L_{\mathrm{sep}}$ is actually a constant multiple of $L_{\mathrm{mul}}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FCKT's central claim is that coarse-grained multi-task alignment causes negative transfer in TSA because it assumes related aspects share one sentiment, and that fine-grained transfer fixes this by conditioning sentiment prediction on each aspect's own predicted boundaries. Concretely, the sentiment classifier consumes an expectation over word embeddings weighted by the predicted start and end distributions, $\hat{y}^{(\ell)} = C_\theta(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=i}^{i+h}\hat{p}_{i,s}\hat{p}_{j,e}\sum_{k=i}^{j}H_k)$, rather than the ground-truth span, so errors in aspect extraction are supervised through sentiment loss. A token-level semantic contrastive loss reinforces this by treating a span's start and end tokens as positive pairs and unrelated tokens as negative pairs, sharpening boundary detection. An alternating ratio $\xi$ mixes real-boundary and predicted-boundary samples to keep the sentiment classifier from over-relying on either signal. On the three benchmarks the resulting model reports F1 of 0.7144, 0.8153, and 0.6225, and the paper attributes the consistent gains over AIFI and over GPT-3.5/GPT-4o prompting to this fine-grained transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The method's gains rest on the assumption that training on split single-aspect sentences is equivalent to training on the original multi-aspect sentences; if that equivalence is wrong, the reported improvements may come from a changed training setup rather than from fine-grained knowledge transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the Laptop, Restaurant, and Tweets benchmarks, FCKT reports TSA F1 scores of 0.7144, 0.8153, and 0.6225, an average gain of about 1.38% over AIFI, with differences marked statistically significant at $p \le 0.05$.
FCKT outperforms GPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4o in zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought settings on all three datasets, suggesting structured sub-task transfer can beat general-purpose prompting for fine-grained TSA.
Ablation experiments show both components matter: removing the aspect-knowledge transfer term lowers TSA F1 by about 3.86% on average, and removing token-level contrastive learning lowers it by about 1.67%, so the fine-grained transfer carries more of the gain.
The alternating supervision ratio $\xi$ has a sweet spot: mixing real and predicted aspect boundaries outperforms using either alone, indicating the sentiment classifier benefits from both ground-truth and transferred boundary signal.
Aspect extraction itself improves, with the largest gain on Tweets (about +2% F1), consistent with the paper's claim that fine-grained transfer helps most when context is short.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: because the claimed gain depends on Eq. (13), one can directly test whether the sentence-splitting preprocessing is inert by training FCKT on original multi-aspect sentences and comparing F1; if the gap over AIFI shrinks, the loss change, not the mechanism, drives the results.
Beyond the paper: the distributional-boundary expectation is not specific to sentiment; it could serve other span-based joint tasks such as nested entity extraction or aspect-opinion pair extraction, wherever a downstream classifier should supervise boundary detection.
Beyond the paper: FCKT's strong prompting-regime comparisons suggest a testable recipe—use a fine-grained transfer model's span outputs as few-shot demonstrations for an LLM—that might improve LLM performance without large-scale fine-tuning.
Beyond the paper: the moderate-$\xi$ finding implies that full reliance on predicted boundaries is worse than mixing, so further gains may come from adaptive per-sample scheduling of $\xi$ rather than a fixed ratio.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new piece here is the combination of a token-level semantic contrastive loss on aspect boundaries and an alternating training scheme that mixes real and predicted aspect boundaries for sentiment classification. That combination is a real extension of the authors' AIFI line, and it is not in prior work. I also want to credit the experimental work: three standard benchmarks, a wide range of baselines, clean ablations, significance tests, and public code. The ablations suggest both new components matter—removing the contrastive loss costs about 1.7% F1, removing the alternating transfer costs about 3.9%.

The soft spots are real and they cluster around the training objective. Appendix A attempts to prove that splitting multi-aspect sentences into single-aspect copies does not change the optimization objective. The proof is wrong. Lmul sums the boundary loss over N sentences and m positions; Lsep sums over M split copies. If a split copy keeps the full sentence, each sentence's boundary loss is counted once per aspect; if the copy truncates, the BERT representations change. Either way, Lmul∝Lsep does not follow. The stress-test note lands. On top of that, Eq. (9) defines the sentiment loss as a mixture of real and predicted branches for every sample, but Algorithm 1 selects exactly one branch per sample via a random draw. Those are different objectives, and the paper doesn't reconcile them.

The consequence is that the headline improvement—roughly 1.38 F1 over AIFI, the authors' own strongest baseline—is not yet attributable to the proposed fine-grained transfer. The sentence splitting is a third ingredient, and it is not ablated. Given the small margin, the gain could be an artifact of the split training distribution. That doesn't sink the paper: the contrastive and alternating components are plausible and individually well-ablated, and the empirical core is strong enough to deserve a serious referee. But the authors need to fix the Appendix A proof or retract the optimization-consistency claim, align the loss definition with the algorithm, and add a no-splitting ablation. With those corrections, this is a competent and useful contribution to the ABSA subfield. Recommend sending it for peer review.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FCKT, a fine-grained cross-task knowledge transfer framework for targeted sentiment analysis (TSA), which jointly extracts aspect spans and classifies their sentiment polarities. The method has three main components: a token-level semantic contrastive loss that treats start/end tokens of an aspect as positive pairs and unrelated tokens as negative pairs; a training strategy that mixes real aspect-boundary features with predicted distributional-boundary features for sentiment classification; and a training-only preprocessing step that splits multi-aspect sentences into single-aspect sentences. Experiments on the Laptop, Restaurant, and Tweets benchmarks report state-of-the-art F1 scores (0.7144, 0.8153, 0.6225), about 1.38% average improvement over the strongest baseline AIFI, and large margins over GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting. An appendix claims that the sentence-splitting step preserves the original optimization objective via a proportionality relation between the multi-aspect and split objectives.

Significance. If the reported results hold, FCKT is a meaningful incremental advance over the authors' prior AIFI work and over current LLM prompting baselines on a well-studied benchmark suite. The paper's strengths include public code, evaluation on three standard datasets, comparison against a broad set of pipeline, end-to-end, and LLM baselines, and systematic ablation and parameter analyses. However, the contribution is heavily dependent on two technical claims that are not established as written: the equivalence of the loss in Eq. (9) with the per-sample alternating procedure in Algorithm 1, and the Appendix A proof that sentence splitting maintains optimization consistency. Because the reported margin over the strongest baseline is small, these gaps are load-bearing for the paper's central claim rather than cosmetic issues.

major comments (4)

[§3.3, Eq. (9) and Algorithm 1] Eq. (9) defines Lsp as a ξ-weighted mixture of the real-boundary prediction ŷ(ψ) and the predicted-boundary prediction ŷ(ℓ) for every sample, i.e., Lsp = -Σ y log(ξ·ŷ(ψ) + (1-ξ)·ŷ(ℓ)). Algorithm 1, however, computes only one of these two branches per sample: if p > ξ it computes ŷ(ℓ), otherwise it computes ŷ(ψ), and then it says to evaluate Lsp via Eq. (9). Since Eq. (9) requires both terms, the algorithm as written is not computable, and the training objective actually optimized is not the one specified in Eq. (9). This matters because the alternating strategy is a stated contribution and the ablation in Table 4 attributes a large performance drop to removing the aspect-knowledge-transfer module. The authors should either replace Eq. (9) with the per-sample selected cross-entropy (or clearly define a batch-level mixture), or revise Algorithm 1 to compute both branches so it matches the equation.
[Appendix A, Eqs. (11)–(13)] The proof that sentence splitting maintains optimization consistency is invalid. Eq. (11) sums Lae over N sentences and m token positions, while Lcl and Lsp are summed over N sentences and l aspects; the combined expression then writes all three terms inside a single sum over j = 1..m, conflating token positions with aspect indices. Eq. (12) instead sums over M split samples with an inner sum over j = 1..m that mixes position-wise boundary terms with aspect-level contrastive and sentiment terms. These are different index spaces, so Eq. (13), Lmul ∝ Lsep, does not follow. Moreover, if a split copy retains the full original sentence, the predicted boundary distributions are identical across copies and the per-copy single-aspect labels are not equivalent to the original multi-aspect objective; if a split copy truncates the sentence, the BERT representations H change. The claimed proportionality is therefore unsupported, and the reported ~1.38 F1 advantage over AIFI could in part be an artifact of the changed training distribution. A correct derivation or, failing that, an empirical control trained without the splitting step is needed before the paper's central claim can be accepted.
[§3.3, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The reduction from Eq. (7) to Eq. (8) truncates the end index j to the range [i, i+h] while leaving the probabilities ŷ(ℓ) and ŷ(ψ) unnormalized with respect to this truncation. If the model is conditioning on the constraints j ≥ i and j - i ≤ h, the discrete expectation should renormalize the truncated probabilities; if Eq. (8) is intended as a heuristic approximation, that should be stated explicitly and its effect on training should be tested. As written, the derivation presents an unnormalized truncation as an exact computational simplification, which affects the definition of the core sentiment loss in Eqs. (8)–(9).
[§4.2, Table 2] The statistical significance claim marked with an asterisk is not supported by details: the paper does not state what test was used, over how many seeds it was computed, or whether it was computed against AIFI or against all baselines. Since the reported gain over AIFI is small and AIFI is the authors' own prior work, this missing detail is relevant to evaluating whether the improvement is outside run-to-run variation. Please report the test procedure, the number of runs, and the exact comparison used for the p-value.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'peopose' in Figure 2, 'approches' in Section 2, 'Spliting' in the Appendix A title, 'promissing' in the MiniConGTS description, and 'Aspect Lengh h' in Figure 5; these should be corrected.
[§3.2, Eq. (3)] In Eq. (3), pT_i,s and pT_i,e are described as elements of R^n, but they are scalars (0-1 values); the notation should distinguish the full boundary label vector from its entries.
[§3.3, Eq. (5)] The symbol ψ in ŷ(ψ) is used without being defined; presumably it denotes real boundary input, but this should be stated explicitly and consistently with Eq. (8).
[§4.1, Implementation Details] The implementation details are deferred to Appendix E, but the main text gives no default values for ξ on each dataset; since Figure 4 shows performance is sensitive to ξ, the final chosen values should be reported in the main text or clearly in Table 2's caption.
[§4.4, Table 4] The ablation table reports average percentage drops but no variance or significance measures; given the small differences involved, adding error bars or significance tests would strengthen the claims about module contributions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: final F1 results are external benchmark comparisons, and the Appendix A proportionality issue is an unproven equivalence, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

FCKT's derivation chain is self-contained against external evidence. The reported TSA F1 scores (Laptop 0.7144, Restaurant 0.8153, Tweets 0.6225) are measured on public benchmarks and compared with reproduced baselines (Table 2, with ‡ marking reproduced results), so the headline numbers are not re-statements of fitted parameters. The method's loss equations are algebraic constructions: predicted boundary distributions feed an expectation over span embeddings (Eq. 7), and the quadratic sum is truncated to O(nh) using a maximum aspect length (Eq. 8); no term is fit to the evaluation labels, and the tuned hyperparameters ξ, λ, and h are validation choices rather than encoded test outcomes. The strongest baseline AIFI is the authors' prior work, but its numbers are marked as reproduced and FCKT also surpasses several independent baselines, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The one notable flaw is in Appendix A: the claim Lmul ∝ Lsep (Eq. 13) is not established, because Eq. (11) relocates aspect-indexed contrastive and sentiment terms inside a sum over sentence positions, while Eq. (12) sums over split samples M; the two index spaces differ, so the proportionality is an asserted conclusion rather than a derived equivalence. This is a correctness/validation gap in the preprocessing justification, not circularity: the equivalence is not assumed as an input, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, no circular step meets the quoting standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The empirical claim rests on five modeling assumptions. Three hyperparameters (xi, h, lambda) are tuned per dataset. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

xi (sampling ratio) = tuned in [0,1]; best around 0.8-0.9 from Figure 4
Controls the proportion of samples trained with real aspect boundaries versus predicted boundary distributions in Eq. (9) and Algorithm 1.
h (maximum aspect length) = selected from {1,2,3,4}; optimal 2 or 3
Truncates the expectation over span boundaries in Eq. (8), changing the sentiment representation.
lambda (contrastive weight) = optimal 0.1
Weights the token-level contrastive loss Lcl in the combined objective Eq. (10).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption BERT-Large contextual embeddings are sufficient for boundary prediction and sentiment classification.
The model builds entirely on BERT features (Section 3.1); no analysis of encoder choice is given.
ad hoc to paper Start and end tokens of an aspect are semantically compatible, and unrelated tokens are not.
The token-level InfoNCE loss (Eq. 4) assumes this pairing carries useful signal; no independent evidence is provided beyond downstream F1.
ad hoc to paper The truncated boundary expectation in Eq. (8) approximates Eq. (7) without renormalization.
Terms with end index beyond i+h are dropped and the distribution is not re-normalized; the paper asserts h is small and end >= start.
ad hoc to paper Sentence splitting preserves the optimization objective, Lmul is proportional to Lsep.
Appendix A Eq. (13) makes this claim, but the sums have different dimensions and no valid proof is given.
ad hoc to paper The alternating real/predicted boundary training is a coherent objective.
Eq. (9) mixes both branches while Algorithm 1 computes one branch per sample; the paper does not resolve the mismatch.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FCKT: Fine-Grained Cross-Task Knowledge Transfer with Semantic Contrastive Learning for Targeted Sentiment Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TIFPEYV

@misc{pith2026250521040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FCKT: Fine-Grained Cross-Task Knowledge Transfer with Semantic Contrastive Learning for Targeted Sentiment Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TIFPEYV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21040}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we address the task of targeted sentiment analysis (TSA), which involves two sub-tasks, i.e., identifying specific aspects from reviews and determining their corresponding sentiments. Aspect extraction forms the foundation for sentiment prediction, highlighting the critical dependency between these two tasks for effective cross-task knowledge transfer. While most existing studies adopt a multi-task learning paradigm to align task-specific features in the latent space, they predominantly rely on coarse-grained knowledge transfer. Such approaches lack fine-grained control over aspect-sentiment relationships, often assuming uniform sentiment polarity within related aspects. This oversimplification neglects contextual cues that differentiate sentiments, leading to negative transfer. To overcome these limitations, we propose FCKT, a fine-grained cross-task knowledge transfer framework tailored for TSA. By explicitly incorporating aspect-level information into sentiment prediction, FCKT achieves fine-grained knowledge transfer, effectively mitigating negative transfer and enhancing task performance. Experiments on three datasets, including comparisons with various baselines and large language models (LLMs), demonstrate the effectiveness of FCKT. The source code is available on https://github.com/cwei01/FCKT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21040 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** An example of the sentence splitting process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The results of FCKT w.r.t different parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The F1 score of FCKT w.r.t varying parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Aspect-category-opinion-sentiment quadruple extraction with implicit aspects and opinions

[Cai et al., 2021] Hongjie Cai, Rui Xia, and Jianfei Yu. Aspect-category-opinion-sentiment quadruple extraction with implicit aspects and opinions. InACL-IJCNLP,

work page 2021
[3]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing

[Devlin et al., 2019] Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Ken- ton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. In NAACL,

work page 2019
[5]

A survey on contrastive self-supervised learn- ing

[Jaiswal et al., 2020] Ashish Jaiswal, Ashwin Ramesh Babu, Mohammad Zaki Zadeh, Debapriya Banerjee, and Fillia Makedon. A survey on contrastive self-supervised learn- ing. Technologies,

work page 2020
[9]

Enhanc- ing aspect-based sentiment analysis with supervised con- trastive learning

[Liang et al., 2021] Bin Liang, Wangda Luo, Xiang Li, Lin Gui, Min Yang, Xiaoqi Yu, and Ruifeng Xu. Enhanc- ing aspect-based sentiment analysis with supervised con- trastive learning. In CIKM,

work page 2021
[11]

Sentiment analysis and opinion min- ing

[Liu, 2012] Bing Liu. Sentiment analysis and opinion min- ing. In Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technolo- gies.,

work page 2012
[13]

Text2nkg: Fine-grained n-ary re- lation extraction for n-ary relational knowledge graph con- struction

[Luo et al., 2024] Haoran Luo, Haihong E, Yuhao Yang, Tianyu Yao, Yikai Guo, Zichen Tang, Wentai Zhang, Shiyao Peng, Kaiyang Wan, Meina Song, Wei Lin, Yifan Zhu, and Anh Tuan Luu. Text2nkg: Fine-grained n-ary re- lation extraction for n-ary relational knowledge graph con- struction. In NeurIPS,

work page 2024
[14]

A span-based model for aspect terms extraction and aspect sentiment classification

[Lv et al., 2021] Yanxia Lv, Fangna Wei, Ying Zheng, Cong Wang, Cong Wan, and Cuirong Wang. A span-based model for aspect terms extraction and aspect sentiment classification. Neural Computing and Applications ,

work page 2021
[15]

Efficient hybrid generation framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis

[Lv et al., 2023] Haoran Lv, Junyi Liu, Henan Wang, Yaom- ing Wang, Jixiang Luo, and Yaxiao Liu. Efficient hybrid generation framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In EACL,

work page 2023

Show all 36 references

[16]

Open domain targeted sentiment

[Mitchell et al., 2013] Margaret Mitchell, Jacqui Aguilar, Theresa Wilson, and Benjamin Van Durme. Open domain targeted sentiment. In EMNLP,

2013
[18]

Semeval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis

[Pontiki et al., 2014] Maria Pontiki, Dimitrios Galanis, John Pavlopoulos, Harris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Suresh Manandhar. Semeval-2014 task 4: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval,

2014
[19]

Semeval-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment anal- ysis

[Pontiki et al., 2015] Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Suresh Manandhar, and Ion Androutsopou- los. Semeval-2015 task 12: Aspect based sentiment anal- ysis. In SemEval,

2015
[22]

Dependency graph enhanced dual- transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classifi- cation

[Tang et al., 2020] Hao Tang, Donghong Ji, Chenliang Li, and Qiji Zhou. Dependency graph enhanced dual- transformer structure for aspect-based sentiment classifi- cation. In ACL,

2020
[23]

Recursive neural condi- tional random fields for aspect-based sentiment analysis

[Wang et al., 2016] Wenya Wang, Sinno Jialin Pan, Daniel Dahlmeier, and Xiaokui Xiao. Recursive neural condi- tional random fields for aspect-based sentiment analysis. EMNLP,

2016
[24]

Is chatgpt a good sen- timent analyzer? a preliminary study

[Wang et al., 2023] Zengzhi Wang, Qiming Xie, Zixiang Ding, Yi Feng, and Rui Xia. Is chatgpt a good sen- timent analyzer? a preliminary study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04339,

2023 arXiv
[25]

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models

[Wei et al., 2022] Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuur- mans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. NeurIPS,

2022
[27]

Learning span-level interactions for aspect sentiment triplet extraction

[Xu et al., 2021] Lu Xu, Yew Ken Chia, and Lidong Bing. Learning span-level interactions for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In ACL,

2021
[28]

Constituency lattice en- coding for aspect term extraction

[Yang et al., 2020] Yunyi Yang, Kun Li, Xiaojun Quan, Weizhou Shen, and Qinliang Su. Constituency lattice en- coding for aspect term extraction. In COLING,

2020
[29]

Knowledge-based multiple adaptive spaces fusion for recommendation

[Yuan et al., 2023] Meng Yuan, Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhao Zhang, Deqing Wang, and Jin Dong. Knowledge-based multiple adaptive spaces fusion for recommendation. In RecSys,

2023
[31]

Contrastive data and learn- ing for natural language processing

[Zhang et al., 2022] Rui Zhang, Yangfeng Ji, Yue Zhang, and Rebecca J Passonneau. Contrastive data and learn- ing for natural language processing. In NAACL: Human Language Technologies: Tutorial Abstracts,

2022
[32]

Spike-ssm: A sparse, precise, and efficient spik- ing state space model for long sequences learning

[Zhong et al., 2024b] Yan Zhong, Ruoyu Zhao, Chao Wang, Qinghai Guo, Jianguo Zhang, Zhichao Lu, and Luziwei Leng. Spike-ssm: A sparse, precise, and efficient spik- ing state space model for long sequences learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17268,

arXiv
[33]

Ctd-inpainting: Towards the coherence of text-driven inpainting with blended diffusion

[Zhong et al., 2025] Yan Zhong, Xinping Zhao, Guangzhi Zhao, Bohua Chen, Fei Hao, Ruoyu Zhao, Jiaqi He, Lei Shi, and Li Zhang. Ctd-inpainting: Towards the coherence of text-driven inpainting with blended diffusion. Informa- tion Fusion,

2025
[34]

A span-based joint model for opinion target extraction and target sentiment classifi- cation

[Zhou et al., 2019] Yan Zhou, Longtao Huang, Tao Guo, Jizhong Han, and Songlin Hu. A span-based joint model for opinion target extraction and target sentiment classifi- cation. In IJCAI,

2019
[35]

A comprehensive evalu- ation of large language models on aspect-based sentiment analysis

[Zhou et al., 2024] Changzhi Zhou, Dandan Song, Yuhang Tian, Zhijing Wu, Hao Wang, Xinyu Zhang, Jun Yang, Ziyi Yang, and Shuhao Zhang. A comprehensive evalu- ation of large language models on aspect-based sentiment analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02279,

2024 arXiv
[36]

Pinpointing diffusion grid noise to enhance aspect sentiment quad prediction

[Zhu et al., 2024] Linan Zhu, Xiangfan Chen, Xiaolei Guo, Chenwei Zhang, Zhechao Zhu, Zehai Zhou, and Xiangjie Kong. Pinpointing diffusion grid noise to enhance aspect sentiment quad prediction. In ACL: Findings, 2024

2024
[2012]

Doer: Dual cross-shared rnn for aspect term-polarity co-extraction

[Luo et al., 2019] Huaishao Luo, Tianrui Li, Bing Liu, and Junbo Zhang. Doer: Dual cross-shared rnn for aspect term-polarity co-extraction. In ACL,

2019
[2013]

Aspect-based sentiment analysis: approaches, applications, challenges and trends

[Nath and Dwivedi, 2024] Deena Nath and Sanjay K Dwivedi. Aspect-based sentiment analysis: approaches, applications, challenges and trends. KIS,

2024
[2014]

Dual- channel span for aspect sentiment triplet extraction

[Li et al., 2023] Pan Li, Ping Li, and Kai Zhang. Dual- channel span for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In EMNLP,

2023
[2015]

Semeval-2016 task 5: Aspect based sentiment analysis

[Pontiki et al., 2016] Maria Pontiki, Dimitris Galanis, Haris Papageorgiou, Ion Androutsopoulos, Suresh Manandhar, AL-Smadi Mohammad, Mahmoud Al-Ayyoub, Yanyan Zhao, Bing Qin, Orph ´ee De Clercq, et al. Semeval-2016 task 5: Aspect based sentiment analysis. In SemEval,

2016
[2016]

MiniConGTS: A near ulti- mate minimalist contrastive grid tagging scheme for aspect sentiment triplet extraction

[Sun et al., 2024] Qiao Sun, Liujia Yang, Minghao Ma, Nanyang Ye, and Qinying Gu. MiniConGTS: A near ulti- mate minimalist contrastive grid tagging scheme for aspect sentiment triplet extraction. In EMNLP,

2024
[2019]

Open-domain targeted senti- ment analysis via span-based extraction and classification

[Hu et al., 2019] Minghao Hu, Yuxing Peng, Zhen Huang, Dongsheng Li, and Yiwei Lv. Open-domain targeted senti- ment analysis via span-based extraction and classification. In ACL,

2019
[2020]

Survey on absa based on machine learning, deep learning and transfer learning approach

[Kalbhor and Goyal, 2023] Shraddha Kalbhor and Dinesh Goyal. Survey on absa based on machine learning, deep learning and transfer learning approach. In AIP Confer- ence Proceedings,

2023
[2021]

A shared- private representation model with coarse-to-fine extraction for target sentiment analysis

[Lin and Yang, 2020] Peiqin Lin and Meng Yang. A shared- private representation model with coarse-to-fine extraction for target sentiment analysis. In EMNLP: Findings,

2020
[2022]

Triplet contrastive learning for aspect level sentiment classification

[Xiong et al., 2022] Haoliang Xiong, Zehao Yan, Hongya Zhao, Zhenhua Huang, and Yun Xue. Triplet contrastive learning for aspect level sentiment classification. Mathe- matics,

2022
[2023]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

[Kingma and Ba, 2014] Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980,

2014 arXiv
[2024]

Fairdgcl: Fairness-aware recommendation with dynamic graph contrastive learning

[Chen et al., 2024c] Wei Chen, Meng Yuan, Zhao Zhang, Ruobing Xie, Fuzhen Zhuang, Deqing Wang, and Rui Liu. Fairdgcl: Fairness-aware recommendation with dynamic graph contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17555,

arXiv
[2025]

Neural networks for open domain targeted sentiment

[Zhang et al., 2015] Meishan Zhang, Yue Zhang, and Duy Tin V o. Neural networks for open domain targeted sentiment. In EMNLP,

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aspect-category-opinion-sentiment quadruple extraction with implicit aspects and opinions

[Cai et al., 2021] Hongjie Cai, Rui Xia, and Jianfei Yu. Aspect-category-opinion-sentiment quadruple extraction with implicit aspects and opinions. InACL-IJCNLP,

work page 2021

[2] [3]

Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing

[Devlin et al., 2019] Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Ken- ton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. In NAACL,

work page 2019

[3] [5]

A survey on contrastive self-supervised learn- ing

[Jaiswal et al., 2020] Ashish Jaiswal, Ashwin Ramesh Babu, Mohammad Zaki Zadeh, Debapriya Banerjee, and Fillia Makedon. A survey on contrastive self-supervised learn- ing. Technologies,

work page 2020

[4] [9]

Enhanc- ing aspect-based sentiment analysis with supervised con- trastive learning

[Liang et al., 2021] Bin Liang, Wangda Luo, Xiang Li, Lin Gui, Min Yang, Xiaoqi Yu, and Ruifeng Xu. Enhanc- ing aspect-based sentiment analysis with supervised con- trastive learning. In CIKM,

work page 2021

[5] [11]

Sentiment analysis and opinion min- ing

[Liu, 2012] Bing Liu. Sentiment analysis and opinion min- ing. In Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technolo- gies.,

work page 2012

[6] [13]

Text2nkg: Fine-grained n-ary re- lation extraction for n-ary relational knowledge graph con- struction

[Luo et al., 2024] Haoran Luo, Haihong E, Yuhao Yang, Tianyu Yao, Yikai Guo, Zichen Tang, Wentai Zhang, Shiyao Peng, Kaiyang Wan, Meina Song, Wei Lin, Yifan Zhu, and Anh Tuan Luu. Text2nkg: Fine-grained n-ary re- lation extraction for n-ary relational knowledge graph con- struction. In NeurIPS,

work page 2024

[7] [14]

A span-based model for aspect terms extraction and aspect sentiment classification

[Lv et al., 2021] Yanxia Lv, Fangna Wei, Ying Zheng, Cong Wang, Cong Wan, and Cuirong Wang. A span-based model for aspect terms extraction and aspect sentiment classification. Neural Computing and Applications ,

work page 2021

[8] [15]

Efficient hybrid generation framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis

[Lv et al., 2023] Haoran Lv, Junyi Liu, Henan Wang, Yaom- ing Wang, Jixiang Luo, and Yaxiao Liu. Efficient hybrid generation framework for aspect-based sentiment analysis. In EACL,

work page 2023