Understanding Negations in Information Processing:
Learning from Replicating Human Behavior
Nicolas Pröllochsa,∗, Stefan Feuerriegela , Dirk Neumanna

arXiv:1704.05356v1 [cs.AI] 18 Apr 2017

a

Chair for Information Systems Research, University of Freiburg, Platz der Alten Synagoge,
79098 Freiburg, Germany

Abstract
Information systems experience an ever-growing volume of unstructured data, particularly in the form of textual materials. This represents a rich source of information from which one can create value for people, organizations and businesses.
For instance, recommender systems can benefit from automatically understanding preferences based on user reviews or social media. However, it is difficult for
computer programs to correctly infer meaning from narrative content. One major
challenge is negations that invert the interpretation of words and sentences. As
a remedy, this paper proposes a novel learning strategy to detect negations: we
apply reinforcement learning to find a policy that replicates the human perception
of negations based on an exogenous response, such as a user rating for reviews.
Our method yields several benefits, as it eliminates the former need for expensive
and subjective manual labeling in an intermediate stage. Moreover, the inferred
policy can be used to derive statistical inferences and implications regarding how
humans process and act on negations.
Keywords:
Unstructured data, information processing, decision-making, natural language
∗
Corresponding author. Mail: nicolas.proellochs@is.uni-freiburg.de; Tel: +49 761 203 2395;
Fax: +49 761 203 2416.
Email addresses: nicolas.proellochs@is.uni-freiburg.de (Nicolas Pröllochs),
stefan.feuerriegel@is.uni-freiburg.de (Stefan Feuerriegel),
dirk.neumann@is.uni-freiburg.de (Dirk Neumann)

processing, reinforcement learning, negations
1. Introduction
When making decisions in their daily lives, humans base their reasoning on
information, while pondering expected outcomes and the importance of individual
arguments. At the same time, they are continuously confronted with novel information of potentially additional value [1]. Psychological theories suggest that,
when processing information, humans constantly categorize and filter for relevant
tid bits [1, 2]. The outcome of this filtering then drives decision-making , which
in turn affects interactions with information technology, personal relationships,
businesses or whole organizations. Information Systems (IS) research [3] thus
strives for insights into how humans interpret and react to information in order
“to understand and improve the ways people create value with information” [4,
p. 20].
Information is increasingly encoded not only in quantitative figures, but also
in qualitative formats, such as textual materials [5]. Common examples from the
digital age include blog entries, posts on social media platforms, user-generated
reviews or negotiations in electronic commerce. These materials predominantly
encompass feedback, comments or reviews, and thus immediately impact the
decision-making processes of individuals and organizations [6, 7]. Rather than
a manual text analysis, a computerized evaluation is generally preferable, as it
can process massive volumes of documents, often in realtime. Recent advances
in information technology render it possible to automatically investigate the influence of qualitative information from narrative language and word-of-mouth –
especially in order to gain an understanding of its content [8]. This, in turn, opens
up novel opportunities for computerized decision support, e. g. question answering
and information retrieval (e. g. [9]). Consequently, understanding decision-making

2

and providing decision support both increasingly rely upon computerized natural
language processing.
The exact interpretation of language is largely impracticable with computer
programs at present. Among the numerous difficulties is the particularly daunting challenge of analyzing negations [10, 11], since their context-dependent nature
hampers bag-of-words approaches for natural language. The latter method considers only word frequencies without looking at the order of words from the beginning
to the end of a document. Such a careful consideration is, however, necessary as
negations occur in various forms; they reverse the meanings of individual words,
but also of phrases or even whole sentences [12]. Thus, one must handle negations
properly in order to achieve an accurate comprehension of texts. The importance
of profound language understanding is demonstrated by the following exemplary
applications:
Recommender Systems. Recommender systems support users by predicting
their rating or preference for a product or service. An increasing number of usergenerated reviews constitutes a compelling source of information [13]. Hence,
recommender systems must accurately classify positive and negative content in
order to interpret the intended opinion contained within reviews [10, 14, 11] or
their credibility [15].
Financial News. Investors in financial markets predominantly base their decision on news when choosing whether to exercise stock ownership. In addition
to quantitative numbers, qualitative information found in news, such as tone
and sentiment, strongly influences stock prices (e. g. [16, 17]). For example,
companies often frame negative news using positive words [18]; therefore, empirical research, investors and automated traders demand the precise processing of
negations.

3

Question Answering Systems. Question answering systems support users with
insights drawn from immense bodies of data. For instance, IBM’s Watson processes millions of medical documents in order to discover potential diseases and
recommends treatments based on symptoms. Similarly, one can automatically
determine software requirements from descriptions. For such applications of information retrieval, it is necessary to distinguish between certainty and beliefs
in natural language by considering negations [19, 20, 9].
Negotiations. Negotiations usually consists of a seesaw of offers and counteroffers, of which most are usually rejected until one is finally accepted. Even
in the digital area, negotiations are based on textual arguments [21] and, in
order for systems to automatically decode outcomes, it is necessary to examine
language correctly [22, 23]. Similarly, this holds for cases in which language helps
to predict deception in human communication [24, 25].
Despite the fact that language offers a rich source of information, its processing
and the underlying decision-making are still subject to ongoing research activities. This includes negation processing, which affects virtually every context or
domain, since neglecting negations can lead to erroneous implications or false interpretations. In the following, we refer to the part of a document whose meaning
is reversed as the negation scope. Identifying negation scopes is difficult as these
are latent, unobservable and – even among experts – highly subjective [12]. In
addition, many machine learning algorithms struggle with this type of problem as
it is virtually impossible to encode with a fixed-length vector while preserving its
order and context [8].
This paper develops a novel method, based on reinforcement learning, for
detecting, understanding and interpreting negations in natural language. This
approach exhibits several favorable features that overcome shortcomings found
in prior works. Among them, reinforcement learning is well suited to learning
4

tasks of varying lengths; that is, it can process sentences of arbitrary complexity
while preserving context and order of information. Furthermore, our approach
eliminates the need for manual labeling of individual words and thus avoids the
detrimental influence of subjectivity and misinterpretation. On the contrary, our
model is solely trained on an exogenous response variable at document level. We
refer to this score as the gold standard, not only because it represents a common
term in text mining, but also to stress that it can reflect any human behavior of
interest. As a result of its learning process, our method adapts to domain-specific
cues or particularities of the given prose.
Our contribution goes beyond the pure algorithmic benefits, since we envision
the goal of understanding human information processing. For this purpose, our
approach essentially learns to replicate human decision-making in order to gain
insights into the workings of the human mind when processing narrative content.
In fact, the reinforcement learning approach is trained based on past decisions.
While the model receives feedback as to how well it matches the human decision, it
does not receive explicit information regarding how to improve accuracy. Rather,
the learner iteratively processes information in textual materials and experiments
with different variants of negation processing in a trial-and-error manner that
imitates human behavior.
Reinforcement learning can considerably advance our understanding of decisionmaking. Indeed, learning itself has long been conceptualized as the process of creating new associations between stimuli, actions and outcomes, which then guide
decision-making in the presence of similar stimuli [26]. We thus show how to make
the knowledge of these associations explicit: we propose a framework by which
to study negation scopes that were previously assumed to be latent and unobservable. Contrary to this presumption, we manage to measure their objective
perception. Therefore, we exploit the action-value function inside the reinforce-

5

ment learning model in order draw statistical inferences and derive conclusions
regarding how the human mind processes and acts upon negations. As such, our
approach presents an alternative or supplement to experiments, such as those of
a psychological or neuro-physiological nature (along the lines of NeuroIS).
This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of related
works that investigate human information processing of textual materials, while
also explaining the motivation behind our research objective of understanding
negations in natural language. Subsequently, Section 3 explains how we adapt
reinforcement learning to improve existing methods of negation scope detection.
In Section 4, we demonstrate our novel approach with applications from recommender systems and finance in order to contribute to existing knowledge of
information processing. Finally, Section 5 discusses implications for IS research,
practice and management.
2. Background
This section presents background on natural language processing. First, we
discuss recent advances in computational intelligence and then outline challenges
that arise when working with narrative content. We conclude by briefly reviewing
previous works on the handling of negation in natural language.
2.1. Human Information Processing
Advances in computational intelligence have revolutionized our understanding
of learning processes in the human brain. As a result, research has yielded precise theories regarding the reception of information and function of human memory [26]. For instance, statistical models provide insights into human memory
formation and the dynamics of memory updating, while also validating these theories by replicating experiments with statistical computations [27]. Reinforcement
learning, especially, has gained considerable traction as it mines real experiences
6

with the help of trial-and-error learning to understand decision-making [26]. Accordingly, existing studies find that the brain naturally reduces the dimensionality
of real-world problems to only those dimensions that are relevant for predicting
the outcome [26]. Along these lines, a recent review argues for jointly combining
both perception and learning in order to draw statistical inferences regarding information processing [28]. While the previous reference materials predominantly
address visual perception, the focus of this paper is rather on natural language.
Behavioral theories suggest that human decision-makers seek as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision [29]. In the case of natural
language, researchers have devised advanced methods to study the influence of
textual information on the resulting decision. On the one hand, it is common to
extract specific facts or features from the content and relate these to a decision
variable [14]. On the other hand, information diffusion is also frequently studied
by measuring the overall tone of documents. This latter approach comprises a
variety of different aspects of perception, including negative language, sentiment
and emotions [11, 30, 17].
In the case of natural language, a variety of textual sources have served as
research subjects for studying word-of-mouth communication and information diffusion. For instance, the dissemination of information and sentiment has been empirically tested in social networks [31], revealing that emotionally-charged tweets
are retweeted more often and faster [30]. Similarly, measuring the response to information allows one to test behavioral theories, such as attribution theories or the
negativity bias, by distinguishing between the reaction to positive and negative
content [32, 30].
2.2. Natural Language Processing
Addressing the above research questions on information processing requires
accurate models for understanding and interpreting natural language. However,
7

the majority of such methods only count the occurrences of words (or combinations), resulting in so-called bag-of-words methods. By doing so, these techniques
have a tendency to ignore information relating to the order of words and their
context [8], such as inverted meanings through negations.
Neglecting negations can substantially impair accuracy when studying human
information processing; for example, it is common “to see the framing of negative
news using positive words” [18]. To avoid false attributions, one must identify
and predict negated text fragments precisely, since information is otherwise likely
to be classified erroneously. This holds true not only for negations in information
retrieval [19, 20], but especially when studying sentiment [10, 33]; even simple
heuristics can yield substantial improvements in such cases [34].
2.3. Negation Processing
Previous methods for detecting, handling and interpreting negations can be
grouped into different categories (cf. [35, 36, 20]).
Rule-based approaches are among the most common due to their ease of implementation and solid out-of-the-box performance. In addition, rules have been
found to work effectively across different domains and rarely need fine-tuning [37].
They identify negations based on pre-defined lists of negating cues and then hypothesize a language model which assumes a specific interpretation by the audience. For example, some rules invert the meaning of all words in a sentence,
while others suppose a forward influence of negation cues and thus invert only a
fixed number of subsequent words [38]. Furthermore, a rule-based approach can
also incorporate syntactic information in order to imitate subject and object [39].
However, rules cannot effectively cope with implicit expressions or particular,
domain-specific characteristics.
Machine learning approaches can partially overcome previous shortcomings [20],
such as the difficulty of recognizing implicit negations. Common examples of such
8

methods include generative probabilistic models in the form of Hidden Markov
models and conditional random fields (e. g. [12]). These methods can adapt to
domain-specific language, but require more computational resources and rely upon
ex ante transition probabilities. Although approaches based on unsupervised
learning avoid the need for any labels, practical applications reveal inferior performance compared to supervised approaches [35]. The latter usually depend
on manual labels at a granular level, which are not only costly but suffer from
subjective interpretations [12].
3. Method Development
This section posits the importance of developing a novel method for learning
negation scopes in textual materials. After first formulating a problem statement,
we introduce our approach, which is based on reinforcement learning.
3.1. Rationale and Intuition of Proposed Methodology
Negation scope detection in related research predominantly relies on rule-based
algorithms. Rule-based approaches entail several drawbacks, as the list of negations must be pre-defined and the selection criterion according to which rule a
rule is chosen is usually random or determined via cross validation. Rules aim to
reflect the “ground truth” but fail at actually learning this.
For those seeking to incorporate a learning strategy, a viable alternative exists
in the form of generative probabilistic models (e. g. Hidden Markov models or
conditional random fields [20]). These process narrative language word-by-word
and move between hidden states representing negated and non-negated parts. On
the one hand, unsupervised learning can estimate the models without annotations,
but yields less accurate results overall [35]. On the other hand, supervised learning
offers better performance, but this approach requires a training set with manual
labels for each word (see Figure 1) which are supposed to approximate the latent
9

negation scopes. Such labeling requires extensive manual work and is highly
subjective, thus yielding only fair performance [35, 36]. As a further drawback,
many approaches from supervised machine learning are simply infeasible as they
usually require an input vector of a fixed, pre-defined length without considering
its order. This circumstance thus necessitates a tailored method for dealing with
negations in narrative materials.
Rules
Apply static rule

Corpus

Negation
Scopes

Insert

Information
processing

Insert

Information
processing

Insert

Information
processing

Unsupervised learning
Estimate

Training set

Model

Apply

Negation
scopes

Corpus

Supervised learning
Training set

Label

Word
annotations

Estimate

Model

Apply

Negation
scopes

Corpus

Our method
Corpus

Find optimal policy for negation scopes

Information
processing

Interpret policy

Figure 1: Process chart compares the different stages of labeling, training and applying rules in
order to evaluate information processing.

In contrast to these suboptimal methods, we propose a novel approach to
determining latent negation scopes based on reinforcement learning. It works well
with learning tasks of arbitrary length [40] and is adaptable to domain-specific
features and particularities. Since it relies only upon a gold standard at document
level, it represents a more objective strategy. However, such an approach has
10

been largely overlooked in previous works on natural language processing (see
Section 2).
Reinforcement learning aims at learning a suitable policy directly through
trial-and-error experience. It updates its knowledge episodically and learns the
policy from past experience using only limited feedback in the form of a reward.
This reward indicates the current performance of the classifier, but does not necessarily specify how to improve the policy. In addition, this type of learning can
also handle highly complex sentences and is thus well suited to the given task.
3.2. Learning Task for Negation Detection
Understanding negations and their influence on language is – as previously
mentioned – a non-trivial computational problem, since the underlying learning
task suffers from several undesirable features:
(1) Even though sentences follow grammatical rules, they can be nested up to
arbitrary complexity and thus become arbitrarily long.
(2) Words have a meaning based on their context, which is implicitly established
by their order. By merely rearranging the word order, one can produce a
completely different meaning. This constitutes a dependency according to
which the meaning of words depends, in part, on all other words and their
order in the same document.
(3) Negation scopes affect individual words; however, we lack annotations on a
word-by-word basis. Instead, we only observe a gold standard for the whole
document upon which we must reconstruct negation scopes for each individual
word within the document.
Based on these challenging features, we can formalize the problem, resulting in
the following learning task. Both negation scopes and sentences are of different
11

length Nd depending on the specific document d. This length can theoretically
range from one to infinity. Each word wd,i in document d with i ∈ {1, . . . , Nd }
thus represents an individual classification task, which also depends on all other
words in that document, i. e.
f : (wd,i , [wd,1 , wd,2 , . . . , wd,Nd ]) 7→ {Negated, ¬Negated},
|
{z
}

(1)

Ordered sequence of words

where [wd,1 , wd,2 , . . .] is an ordered list of variable length providing context information.
Each document comes with a single label yd , i. e. the gold standard, which
reflects the response of human decision-making to the text processing. In order
to estimate f , we minimize the expected error (or any other loss-like function)
via the gold standard and the result of a text processing function. The latter
function maps the words as a predictor onto the gold standard. Examples of
text processing functions are functions that measure the accuracy of information
retrieval or sentiment based on the presence of polarity words.
3.3. Reinforcement Learning
Reinforcement learning constructs a suitable policy for negation classification
through trial-and-error experience. That is, it mimics human-like learning and
thus appears well suited to natural language processing. In the following section,
we introduce its key elements and tailor the method to our problem statement.
The overall goal is to train an agent based on a recurrent sequence of interactions. After observing the current state, the agent decides upon an action. Based
on the result of the action, the agent receives immediate feedback via a reward.
It is important to note that the agent aims only to maximize the rewards, but it
never requires pairs of input and the true output (i. e. words and a flag indicating
whether they are negated). This forms a setting in which the agent learns the
latent negation scopes.
12

More formally, the model consists of a finite set of environmental states S
and a finite set of actions A. The agent models the decision-maker by iteratively
interacting with an environment over a sequence of discrete steps and seeks to
maximize the reward over time. Here, the environment is a synonym for the
states and the transition rules between them. At each iteration i, the decisionmaking agent observes a state si ∈ S. Based on the current state si , the agent
picks an action ai ∈ A(si ), where A(si ) ⊆ A is the subset of available actions in
the given state si . Subsequently, the agent receives feedback related to its decision
in the form of a numerical reward ri+1 , after which it moves then moving to the
next state si+1 . The entire process is depicted in Figure 2.
Agent
State
si

Reward
ri

Action
ai
ri+1
si+1

Text Processing
Environment

Figure 2: Interaction between agent and environment in reinforcement learning [40].

In order to build up knowledge, reinforcement learning updates a state-action
function Q(si , ai ), which specifies the expected reward for each possible action ai
in state si . This knowledge can then be used to infer the optimal behavior, i. e.
the policy that maximizes the expected reward from any state. Specifically, the
optimal policy π ∗ (si , ai ) chooses in state si the actions ai that maximizes Q(si , ai ).
Several algorithms have been devised to learn an optimal policy π ∗ , among
which is an approach known as Q-learning [40, 41]. This methods seeks an optimal policy without an explicit model of the environment. In other words, it knows
neither explicitly the reward function nor the state transition function [42]. Instead, it iteratively updates its action-value Q(st , at ) based on past experience [41].
In our case, we use a variant with eligibility traces named Watkin’s Q(λ) due to
13

better convergence; see [40] for details.
3.4. Learning Negation Processing
In this section, we outline how we adapt reinforcement learning to our attempt
to simulate human negation processing. In each iteration, the agent observes the
current state si = (wi , ai−1 ) that we engineer as the combination of the i-th word
wi in a document and the previous action ai−1 . This specification establishes
a recurrent architecture whereby the previous negation can pass on to the next
word.1 At the same time, this allows for nested negations, as a word can first
introduce a negation scope and another subsequent negation can potentially revert
it based on ai−1 = Negated to follow a non-negating action again. In our case, we
incorporate the actual words into the states, while other variants are also possible,
such as using part-of-speech tags or word stems instead. The latter variants work
similarly; however, our tests suggest a lower out-of-sample performance.2
After observing the current state, the agent chooses an action at from of two
possibilities: (1) it can set the current word to negated or (2) it can mark it
as not negated. Hence, we obtain the following set of possible actions A =
{Negated, ¬Negated}. Based on the selected action, the agent receives a reward,
ri which updates the knowledge in the state-action function Q(si , ai ). This stateaction function is then used to infer the best possible action ai in each state si ,
i. e. the optimal policy π ∗ (si , ai ).
Our approach relies upon a text processing function that measures the correlation between a given gold standard at document level (e. g. the author’s rating in
movie reviews) and the content of a document. We later show possible extensions
1

Such a design is common in partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDP for

short) that feature a similar relaxation into so-called belief states [43].
2
By definition, the use of n-grams is not necessary, as the context is implicitly modeled by
the ordered sequence of states and actions.

14

(see Section 5.1), but for now demonstrate only how the tone (or sentiment) in
a document works as a predictor of its exogenous assessment. Examples of such
predicted variables are movie ratings in the case of reviews or stock market returns in the case of financial disclosures. Even though more advanced approaches
from machine learning are possible, we prefer – for reasons of clarity – an approach is based on pre-defined lists of positive and negative terms, Lpos and Lneg .
We then measure the tone Sd in document d as the difference between positively
and negatively opinionated terms divided by the overall number of terms in that
document [11], i. e.
Sd =

|{wi | wi ∈ Lpos }| − |{wi | wi ∈ Lneg }|
.
Nd

(2)

If a term is negated by the policy, the polarity of the corresponding term is
inverted, i. e. positively opinionated terms are counted as negative and vice versa.
Our list of opinionated words originates from the Harvard IV General Inquirer
dictionary which contains 1915 opinionated entries with a positive connotation
and 2291 entries marked as negative.
Let us now demonstrate the learning process via an example, where the agent
processes word-by-word the first document, which consists of “this is a good product”, with gold standard +1 (i. e. positive content). The agent might then, at
random, decide to explore the environment by negating the word “good ”. Upon
reaching the last word, it receives feedback in the form of a zero as there is no
improvement from having negation scopes compared to having none. Thus, the
agent will discard this action in the future. It then processes the second document:
(“this isn’t a good product” with gold standard −1), where it negates all words following “isn’t”. As this inversion now better reflects the gold standard, the agent
receives a positive reward and will apply this rule in the future. Ultimately, the
agent is also able to learn a suitable policy for nested negations, e. g. for the third
document “this product isn’t good but fantastic” with gold standard +1. Based
15

on the current policy, it negates all words following “isn’t” but receives a negative
reward as there is an inferior resulting correlation compared to not incorporating
negations. However, through further exploration, the agent learns that it is beneficial to terminate the negation scope after “but.” Thus, the agent will invert
all words subsequent to “isn’t” and terminate the negation scope subsequent to
“but” if (and potentially only if) the previous state is negated. Table 1 illustrates
an exemplary resulting state-action function for this learning process.
State=(wi , ai−1 )

ai = Negated

ai = ¬Negated

π ∗ (si , ai )

(this, ¬Negated)

3

6

¬Negated

(product, ¬Negated)

1

3

¬Negated

(isn’t, ¬Negated)

5

1

Negated

(good, Negated)

3

1

Negated

(but, Negated)

2

4

¬Negated

(fantastic, ¬Negated)

2

3

¬Negated

Table 1: Exemplary table for the state-action function Q(si , ai ) with recurrent state architecture and actions A = {Negated, ¬Negated}. Each cell contains the expected reward for the
corresponding state-action pairs. The last column shows optimal policy π ∗ (si , ai ) for all states
and actions.

We now specify a reward ri such that it incentivizes the outcome of the text
processing function to match the gold standard. When processing a document,
we cannot actually compute the reward (as not all negations are clear) until we
have processed all words. Therefore, we set the reward before the last word to
almost zero, i. e. ri ≈ 0 for all i = 1, . . . , Nd −1. Upon reaching the final word, the
agent compares the text processing function without any negation to the current
policy π ∗ . The former is defined by the absolute difference between gold standard
yd and tone Sd0 , whereas the latter is defined by the absolute difference between
gold standard yd and the adjusted tone using the current policy Sdπ . Then the
difference between the text processing functions returns the terminal reward rNd .

16

This results in the reward




0,
if ai = Negated and i < Nd ,



ri = c,
if ai = ¬Negated and i < Nd ,





|yd − Sd0 | − |yd − Sdπ | , if i = Nd ,

(3)

with constant c = 0.005 that adds a small reward for default (i. e. non-negating)
actions to avoid overfitting.
At the beginning, we initialize the action-value function Q(s, a), i. e. the current knowledge of the agent, to zero for all states and actions.3 The agent then
successively observes a sequence of words in which it can select between exploring
new actions or taking the current optimal one. This choice is made by ε-greedy
selection according to which the agent explores the environment by selecting a
random action with probability ε or, alternatively, exploits the current knowledge
with probability 1 − ε. In the latter case, the agent chooses the action with the
highest estimated reward for the given policy.4
3.5. Inferences, Understanding and Hypothesis Testing
Our approach features several beneficial characteristics that make inferences
and statistical testing easy. In contrast to black-box approaches in machine learning, we can use the state-action function Q(s, a) to infer rules regarding how the
content is processed because the function reflects the ground truth. For instance,
this state-action function specifically determines which cues introduce explicit or
3

This also controls our default action when encountering unknown states or words in the

out-of-sample dataset. In such cases, the non-negated action is preferred.
4
First, we perform 4000 iterations with a higher exploration rate as given by the following
parameters: exploration ε = 0.1 %, discount factor γ = 0 % and learning rate α = 0.5 %. In a
second phase, we run 1000 iterations for fine-tuning with exploration ε = 0.01 %, discount factor
γ = 0 % and learning rate α = 0.1 %. See [40, 41] for detailed explanations.

17

implicit negations. Additionally, we can gain a metric of confidence about the
rules by comparing the largest reward to all other rewards in a specific state. A
larger discrepancy expresses higher confidence with regard to a certain action.
Applying the policy to out-of-sample documents benchmarks its performance
in comparison to the absence of negation handling. Furthermore, we can study,
for instance, which cues prompt this policy to introduce negation scopes, as well
as their position, size or other characteristics as a basis for statistical testing.
4. Evaluating Negation Processing
This section evaluates our method for replicating human negation processing.
First, we show how policy learning can help to yield a more accurate interpretation
of movie reviews. We then detail the role of negation cues and compare explicit
versus implicit negations. In the next step, we validate the robustness of our
results and introduce a second application scenario which addresses the relevance
of accurate negation handling in financial disclosures.
4.1. Case Study: Recommender System
Recommender systems can benefit greatly from user-generated reviews, which
represent a rich source of information. We thus demonstrate our method using
a common dataset [44] of 5006 movie reviews from the Internet Movie Database
archive (IMDb), each annotated with an overall rating at document level.5 It is
widely accepted that measuring the tone of movie reviews is particularly difficult
because positive movie reviews often mention some unpleasant scenes, while negative reviews, conversely, often detail certain pleasant scenes [45]. Thus, this corpus
5

We

use

the

scaled

dataset

available

from

www.cs.cornell.edu/people/pabo/

movie-review-data/. All reviews are written by four different authors and preprocessed, e. g.
by removing explicit rating indicators [44].

18

appears particularly suitable for a case study since it allows one to examine the
importance of human-like negation processing beyond simple rules. Accordingly,
we use 10-fold cross validation to verify the predictive accuracy.
4.2. Policy Learning for Negation Processing
Shown below are the results from policy learning for negation processing. Table 2 summarizes the main results and we explicate these findings in more depth.
As part of a benchmark, we study the proportion of variance of the gold standard
that is explained by the tone when leaving negations untreated. We observe an
in-sample R2 of 0.0870 and a R2 of 0.0867 in the out-of-sample set. We then
compare this to our approach of policy learning. We perform 5000 learning iterations, thereby yielding significant improvements: the in-sample R2 increases by
158.94 %, leading to an overall R2 of 0.2233. Similarly, we see a rise by 58.94 % to
a R2 of 0.1378 in the out-of-sample set. A better handling of negations thus contributes to more accurate text processing (we later perform additional robustness
checks; see Section 4.5).
R2
(no negation handling)

R2
(with negation policy)

In-sample set

0.0870

0.2233

158.94

Out-of-sample set

0.0867

0.1378

58.94

Improvement
(in %)

Table 2: Comparison of gold standard variance explained by the tone. Figures are reported
for both the in-sample and out-of-sample sets using 10-fold cross validation after 5000 learning
iterations.

We now provide descriptive statistics of negation scopes in order to gain further
insights (Table 3). For this purpose, we apply the learned policy to the out-ofsample documents and record its effects. In the first place, the policy negates a
large share (38.11 %) of opinionated words, i. e. words that convey a positive or
negative polarity. On average, each document contains 75.18 separate negation
19

scopes of different size and extent, all of which invert opinion words. For example,
the length of the corresponding negation scopes, i. e. sequences that are uniformly
negated, is unevenly distributed and ranges from 1 to 18 words, whereas the
average length of each scope is 1.74 words. 75.46 % of all negation scopes consist
of only a single word, while 24.53 % encompass two or more words.

Minimum length of negation scopes

1

Maximum length of negation scopes

18

Mean length of negation scopes

1.74

Share of negation scopes with ≤ 1 word

75.46 %

Share of negation scopes with ≥ 2 word

24.53 %

Share of negated polarity words

38.11 %

Mean number of negation scopes per document

75.18

Table 3: Descriptive statistics on the out-of-sample set after applying the in-sample policy.

4.3. Negation Cues
Negation scopes are typically initiated by specific cues that invert the meaning
of surrounding words. These negation cues can be grouped in two categories. On
the one hand, a negation cue can be explicit, such as not in the sentence, “This
is not a terrible movie”. On the other hand, negations can also flip the meaning
of sentences implicitly, e. g. “The actor did a great job in his last movie; it was
the first and last time”.
Given this understanding, we investigate individual effects of explicit and implicit negations on text reception. For this purpose, we group the words that
initiate a negation scope according to their part-of-speech tag and depict in Figure 3 the resulting share of negation cues by word class. Here, the last bar relies
on a list of explicit negations as proposed by [34]. We thus find evidence that a
major share of negations (4 out of 8, i. e. 50.00 %) are evoked by explicit cues,
while the remainder originate from implicit negations.
20

Share of Negated Words in %

80.00
60.00

50.00

40.00
20.00

9.50

17.59

14.73
0.00

0.00
Adjective

Adverb

Conjunction

Implicit Negations

5.76

Noun

Verb

Negation
Explicit Negations

Figure 3: Negation cues per word class based on policy learned after 5000 iterations.

We now provide additional descriptions of the appearance of implicit negations. For instance, we frequently observe words such as fairly or hopefully as
part of implicit negation cues, which often transform a positive statement into a
negative one, e. g. “Hopefully, the movie is better next time”. Contrary to our
prior expectations, conjunctions seem unlikely to initiate a negation scope, but
are often accountable for double negations. Here, words such as but and nor frequently revert the meaning of negated words, i. e. terminate the negation scope,
as in the sentence, “The movie is not great but absolutely unmissable”.
Table 4 provides statistics for all explicit negation cues based on [34].6 Their
frequency in the documents differs considerably, while some cues also involve a
larger negation scope than others. For example, the negation word not negates
1.60 subsequent words on average, whereas this figure stands at 1.92 for the term
without. Based on the Q-value, we assess their strength, i. e. a larger value
6

Here, we divide the corpus into two subsets: an in-sample set of 4005 reviews which we

use to learn the agent, and (b) an out-of-sample set with the remaining 1001 documents to test
implications. We exclude the use of cross validation since we desire a single model with which
can perform statistical analyses.

21

indicates a higher reward from negating. We can also gain confidence in negations
by comparing the gap between the highest and second highest Q-value of each
word. Interestingly, several words that were previously considered negation cues
do not negate surrounding words in our case, namely, barely, less, hardly and
rarely.
Word

Negating Action

Q-Value

Confidence (Difference
to Second Best Policy)

Occurrences

Mean Length
of Negation Scope

not

3

0.0700

0.0456

1941

1.60

no

3

0.0696

0.0491

699

1.71

never

3

0.0680

0.0367

398

1.67

without

3

0.0779

0.0419

249

1.92

barely

7

–

–

–

–

less

7

–

–

–

–

hardly

7

–

–

–

–

rarely

7

–

–

–

–

Table 4: Explicit negation words from [34] according to policy learned after 5000 iterations.

This provides evidence that static negation lists are generally inadequate in
mimicking human perception. Even though explicit negations can be recognized
with predefined lists of cues, implicit ones are often hidden and difficult to identify
algorithmically. As a remedy to this shortcoming, our approach is capable of
learning both kinds of negations and can handle them accordingly.
4.4. Behavioral Implications of Negation Processing
Policy learning is also a valuable tool for analyzing behavioral implications.
In this section, we demonstrate potential policy learning applications that allow
for the testing of certain hypotheses regarding human information processing of
natural language.
As an example, our method allows one to test the hypothesis whether negations
appear evenly throughout different parts of narrative content. Such a test is not
tractable for rules or supervised learning with intermediate labeling, since these
22

introduce a subjective choice of negation cues, rules or labels; however, our method
infers a negation policy model from an exogenous response variable. Hence, we
can evaluate where authors place negations when composing reviews, i. e. do they
generally introduce negative aspects in the beginning or rather at the end? We
thus compare the frequency of negations (as a proxy for negativity) across different
parts of documents in the corpus. Let µ1 denote the mean of negated words in
the first half and µ2 in the second half of a document or sentence, respectively.
We can then test a null hypothesis H0 : µ1 = µ2 to infer behavioral implications.
As a result, we find that the second half of an out-of-sample document contains
1.38 % more negations than its first half on average. This difference is statistically
significant at even the 0.1 % significance level when performing a two-sided Welch
t-test. It also coincides with psychological research according to which senders
of information are more likely to place negative content at the end [46]; however,
we can provide evidence outside of a laboratory setting by utilizing human information behavior in a real-life environment. Furthermore, the share of negated
words also varies across different segments of sentences. However, at this level,
the effect tends in the opposite direction as the first half of a sentence in the
out-of-sample contains 0.09 % more negations than the second half. The latter is
also statistically significant at the 0.1 % level.
4.5. Robustness Checks
We investigate the convergence of the reinforcement learning process to a stationary policy. Accordingly, Figure 4 visualizes the proportion of variance of the
gold standard that is explained by the tone for the first 5000 learning iterations.
Here, the horizontal lines denote the explained variance in the benchmark setting
(i. e. no negation handling). Both the in-sample and out-of-sample R2 improve
relatively quickly and outperform the benchmark considerably. In the end, we
use our above policy based on 4000 iterations, since the next 1000 iterations con23

sistently show fluctuations below 0.05 % in terms of in-sample R2 . This pattern
indicates a fairly stationary outcome.

0.20
R2

0.15
Benchmark (no negation handling)

0.10
0.05

Explained variance (in−sample)

0.00

Explained variance (out−of−sample)
1000
2000
3000
Iteration

0

4000

5000

Figure 4: The fluctuating series show the converging explained variance of user ratings based
on tone (i. e. sentiment) across different learning iterations using 10-fold cross validation, while
the uniform lines shows it after smoothing. Here, the dark gray series corresponds to the insample set, whereas the light gray series corresponds to the out-of-sample set. The horizontal
line denotes the R2 in the benchmark setting (without handling negations).

Next, we compare the performance of our reinforcement learning approach to
common rules proposed in the literature [38, 37], which essentially try to imitate
the grammatical structure of a sentence. For this purpose, the negation rules
search for the occurrence of specific cues based on pre-defined lists and then
invert the meaning of a fixed number of surrounding words. Hence, we apply the
individual rules to each document and again compare the out-of-sample R2 ; see
Table 5 for results. Negating a fixed window of the next 4 words achieves the
highest fit among all rules similar to [47]. This rule exceeds the benchmark with
no negation handling by 10.84 %. Most importantly, our approach works even
more accurately, and dominates all of the rules, outperforming them by at least
43.39 %.

24

Approach

Correlation

Benchmark: no negation handling

0.0867

Negating all subsequent words

0.0840

Negating the whole sentence

0.0661

Negating a fixed window of 1 word

0.0918

Negating a fixed window of 2 words

0.0948

Negating a fixed window of 3 words

0.0953

Negating a fixed window of 4 words

0.0962

Negating a fixed window of 5 words

0.0961

Our approach (based on reinforcement learning)

0.1378

Table 5: Table compares the out-of-sample R2 (using 10-fold cross validation) of our approach
and different rules from previous literature.

Finally, we evaluated further setups and methods for handling negations. We
first tested alternative action sets for reinforcement learning that not only negate
single words but also whole phrases, including backward negations. However,
this configuration leads to inferior R2 values on both the in-sample and out-ofsample set. We also explored other dictionaries of opinionated words and the
performance of generative probabilistic models. Here, we find similar results for
alternative dictionaries but inferior results for generative probabilistic models. All
results confirm our findings.7
4.6. Comparison with Negation Processing in Financial News
Our second case study investigates information processing in financial markets by analyzing how qualitative content in financial disclosures influences stock
prices. For this purpose, we use 14,463 regulated ad hoc announcements8 from
European companies, all of which are written in English. These entail several
advantages; for example, ad hoc announcements must be authorized by company
7
8

Available on request.
Kindly provided by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ad-Hoc-Publizität (DGAP).

25

executives, their content is largely quality-checked by federal authorities and previous evidence finds a strong relationship between content and subsequent stock
market reaction [48]. As our gold standard, we calculate the daily abnormal return of the corresponding stock [49, 50]. We measure the tone in these disclosures
with the help of a finance-specific dictionary, the Loughran and McDonald dictionary [18]. This dictionary contains 354 entries with positive polarity, as well as
2350 entries marked as negative.
As detailed below, we derive a policy for negation processing and briefly introduce our main findings. Again, our reinforcement learning approach improves
the link between tone and market response. Our benchmark without negation
handling yields an out-of-sample R2 of 0.0042, while our method increases this by
37.02 %, resulting in an out-of-sample R2 for 10-fold cross validation of 0.0057.
Both the absolute R2 and its improvements are – as expected – higher for movie
reviews; this is a domain-specific disparity since “very few control variables predict
next-day returns” in efficient markets [51].
Next, we apply the learned policy to the out-of-sample documents and record
its effects. Interestingly, we find that negations are less frequent in financial news.
On average, each document contains 5.30 separate negation scopes that invert
10.88 % of all opinion words. The length of the corresponding negation scopes
is shorter, ranging from 1 to 14 words with an average length of 1.60 words.
Similarly, to the results for the movie reviews, we find that the end of a document
is more likely to contain negations than the beginning. On average, the second
half of an out-of-sample announcement contains 6.45 % more negation that its
first half. It is noteworthy that this difference is significant at the 10 % level using
a two-sided Welch t-test. This might suggest that authors of financial disclosures
utilize negations as a tool to convey negative information through positive words.
Overall, the results show that negations are domain-specific and depend on the

26

particularities of the chosen prose. Additionally, the comparison strongly affirms
that negation handling enhances the understanding of information processing for
natural language of an arbitrary domain.
5. Discussion
In the following sections, we discuss the implications of our research, as our
method not only improves text comprehension, but also suggests a new approach
to understanding decision-making in the social and behavioral sciences. Furthermore, our research is highly relevant for practitioners when extending information
systems with interfaces for natural language.
5.1. Extensibility
Our method of negation learning is not limited to the study of tone or sentiment; on the contrary, one can easily adapt it to all applications of natural
language processing which utilize a gold standard and where negations play an
important role. To accomplish this, one replaces the function calculating the sentiment with a corresponding counterpart that maps words onto a gold standard
for the given application. Our only requirement is that this function takes into
consideration – in some way – whether each word is negated or not.
To better illustrate this concept, we briefly describe how this works using
two examples. We first consider a medical question-answering system into which
users enter their symptoms and, in return, are provided a list of potential illnesses. The system bases its answers on a collection of medical reports and one
measures its performance by counting the number of correctly retrieved answers
relative to the given input. For example, the system should return “fever” for
input “flu” when the corpus contains “a flu causes fever”. Reinforcement learning can improve accuracy in the presence of negations; i. e. it learns that diseases
can also be unrelated to symptoms, as in the statement, “A flu does not result
27

in high blood pressure”. As a second example, we assume an information system
for negotiations that proposes offers to customers, who then reply in natural language. Subsequently, the information system automatically determines whether
a customer’s response was positive or negative based on its content. A naı̈ve
bag-of-words model considers only specific cues (such as accept without context),
whereas our approach can even learn to correctly classify cases with negations,
e. g. by appending the prefix “not ” to words that are negated [33].
We now generalize the reward function in order to search for an optimal negation policy for the above applications. For each document d with gold standard
yd , we calculate the predictive performance perf 0d that should forecast the gold
standard negation handling, as well as perf πd using the current policy π. The agent
then gains a reward




0,
if ai = Negated and i < Nd ,



ri = c,
if ai = ¬Negated and i < Nd ,





 yd − perf 0d − |yd − perf πd | , if i = Nd

(4)

with a suitable constant c. The first two cases add a small reward c for default
(i. e. non-negating) actions to avoid overfitting, while the last case rewards how
much better the current policy approximates the gold standard compared to no
treatment of negations. This definition thus extends reinforcement learning to
seek optimal negation processing across almost arbitrary applications of natural
language processing.
5.2. Limitations
The current research faces a number of limitations, which can provide investigative possibilities for further works as follows: first and foremost, our method
exhibits shortcomings when language is intricate, such as when piece of text refers

28

to content that is located in an entirely different part of the document. Sometimes one even requires additional background knowledge to correctly interpret
the content, as in the statement, “The movie was not at all different from the last
one”. This complexity poses challenges to natural language processing – not only
for our method but also for those discussed in the related work. In addition, we
predominantly focus on implementations where negations have a forward-looking
scope, i. e. a negation cue affects subsequent words but not words that precede it.
Therefore, we have also tested variants with a backward-looking analysis as part of
our robustness checks; however, this offers opportunities for additional variations
with advanced actions which could, for instance, invert the meaning of the full
sentence or the subsequent object in order to further improve accuracy. Finally,
further effort is necessary to develop an unsupervised variant which eliminates the
need for a gold standard.
5.3. Implications for IS Research
The unique and enduring purpose of IS research as an academic field is to
understand and improve the ways in which people, organizations and businesses
create value with information [3, 4]. Hence, the design and implementation of systems to provide “the right information to the right person at the right time was
the raison d’être of early IS research” [32]. In the past, “information” predominantly referred to structured data, while companies nowadays also exploit unstructured data and especially textual materials. This development has found its
way into IS research, which thus focuses on how textual information is processed.
Among the earliest references to this area of inquiry is an article in Management
of Information Systems Quarterly from 1982 that explicitly addresses information
processing [52].
The field of information processing has gained great traction with advances
in neuroscience and NeuroIS [53]. By acquiring neuro-physiological data, schol29

ars can gather information on how the human brain reacts to external stimuli.
For this purpose, one measures (neuro-)physiological parameters (e. g. heart rate
and skin conductance) to study the information processing of human agents [54].
This makes it possible to measure informational and cognitive overload in users
in the course of their interaction with information systems [54] and text-based
information [55]. However, NeuroIS remains very costly and the methods exhibit
many weaknesses [56]. For example, interpreting data from functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) is hampered by the complexity and non-localizable
activities of the brain.
Our computational intelligence method promises to fill the gap in existing
approaches to understanding negations. It is analogous to revealed preferences
estimations in economics, where the choices of individuals reveal the individuals’
latent utility function, since we utilize text documents that are tagged by the
users with a rating or gold standard. In addition, applying computational intelligence offers the potential to automatically unveil negations in texts – without the
need to manually label individual words. This entails several advantages as the
understanding of language is highly subjective and, in contrast, we derive the (latent) negation model that best fits the data. The results can thus also contribute
to linguistic and psychological models of negation usage and representation [57].
Overall, reinforcement learning manifests immense potential for future IS research
involving the study of information processing in depth.
5.4. Implications for Practitioners
Previous IS research argues that “a basic issue in the design of expert systems
is how to equip them with representational and computational capabilities” [58].
As a remedy, this paper presents a tool to practitioners in order to improve the
automated processing of natural language in their information systems. As such,
our methodology can enhance the accuracy of decision support based on textual
30

data. It does not necessarily require changes in the derivation of the original
algorithms; instead, our methodology can be built on top of routines and thus
enables a seamless integration into an existing tool chain.
Practitioners can benefit from negation handling when assessing the semantic
orientation of written materials. For example, in the case of recommender systems
and opinion mining, texts provide decision support by tracking the public mood
in order to measure brand perception or judge the launch of a new product based
on blog posts, comments, reviews or tweets. Based on our case study, we see a
significant improvement of up to 58.94 % in explained variance by adjusting for
negated text units.
A better understanding of human language can spark business innovations
in multiple areas. For instance, our approach facilitates the interactive control
of information systems through natural language, such as in question-answering
systems. With the advent of cognitive computing, the accurate processing of
natural language will gain even more in importance [59]. Ultimately, the relevance
of our methodology goes beyond these examples and comprises almost all textbased applications of individuals, organizations and businesses.
6. Conclusion
Information is at the heart of all decision-making that affects humans, businesses and organizations. Consequently, understanding the formation of decisions
represents a compelling research topic and yet knowledge gaps become visible
when it comes to information processing with regard to natural language. Negations, for example, are a frequently utilized linguistic tool for expressing disapproval or framing negative content with positive words; however, existing methods
struggle to accurately recognize and interpret negations in written text. Moreover, these methods are often tethered to large volumes of manually labeled data,

31

which introduce an additional source of subjectivity and noise.
In order to address these shortcomings, this paper develops a novel approach
based on reinforcement learning, which has the advantage of being human-like
and thus capable of learning to replicate human decision-making. As a result, our
evaluation shows superior performance in predicting negation scopes, while this
method also reveals an unbiased approach to identifying negation scopes based on
an exogenous response variable collected at document level. It thereby sheds light
on the “ground truth” of negation scopes, which would have otherwise been latent
and unobservable. In addition, reinforcement learning allows for hypothesis testing in order to pinpoint how humans process and act on negations. For instance,
this paper demonstrates that negations are unequally distributed across document
segments, showing that the second half of movie reviews and financial news items
contain significantly more negations than the first half. Our approach serves as an
intriguing alternative or supplement to experimental research, as it unleashes computational intelligence for the purpose of performing behavioral research, thereby
fostering unprecedented insights into human information processing.
References
[1] D. LaBerge, S. Samuels, Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading, Cognitive Psychology 6 (1974) 293–323.
[2] W. Schneider, R. M. Shiffrin, Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: Detection, Search, and Attention, Psychological Review 84
(1977) 1–66.
[3] R. O. Briggs, Special Section: Cognitive Perspectives on Information Systems, Journal of Management Information Systems 31 (2015) 3–5.
[4] J. F. Nunamaker, R. O. Briggs, Toward A Broader Vision for Information
32

Systems, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 2 (2011)
1–12.
[5] M. C. Lacity, M. A. Janson, Understanding Qualitative Data: A Framework
of Text Analysis Methods, Journal of Management Information Systems 11
(1994) 137–155.
[6] M. Chau, J. Xu, Business Intelligence in Blogs: Understanding Consumer
Interactions and Communities, MIS Quarterly 36 (2012) 1189–1216.
[7] S. Vodanovich, D. Sundaram, M. Myers, Digital Natives and Ubiquitous
Information Systems, Information Systems Research 21 (2010) 711–723.
[8] J. Hirschberg, C. D. Manning, Advances in Natural Language Processing,
Science 349 (2015) 261–266.
[9] R. E. Vlas, W. N. Robinson, Two Rule-Based Natural Language Strategies
for Requirements Discovery and Classification in Open Source Software Development Projects, Journal of Management Information Systems 28 (2012)
11–38.
[10] N. P. Cruz, M. Taboada, R. Mitkov, A Machine–Learning Approach to
Negation and Speculation Detection for Sentiment Analysis, Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology In Press (2015).
[11] B. Pang, L. Lee, Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis, Foundations and
Trends in Information Retrieval 2 (2008) 1–135.
[12] I. G. Councill, R. McDonald, L. Velikovich, What’s Great and What’s Not:
Learning to Classify the Scope of Negation for Improved Sentiment Analysis,
in: Proceedings of the Workshop on Negation and Speculation in Natural

33

Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2010, pp. 51–59.
[13] N. Archak, A. Ghose, P. G. Ipeirotis, Deriving the Pricing Power of Product
Features by Mining Consumer Reviews, Management Science 57 (2011) 1485–
1509.
[14] T. T. Thet, J.-C. Na, C. S. G. Khoo, Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis
of Movie Reviews on Discussion Boards, Journal of Information Science 36
(2010) 823–848.
[15] M. L. Jensen, J. M. Averbeck, Z. Zhang, K. B. Wright, Credibility of Anonymous Online Product Reviews: A Language Expectancy Perspective, Journal
of Management Information Systems 30 (2013) 293–324.
[16] E. Henry, Are Investors Influenced by How Earnings Press Releases are
Written?, Journal of Business Communication 45 (2008) 363–407.
[17] P. C. Tetlock, Giving Content to Investor Sentiment: The Role of Media in
the Stock Market, Journal of Finance 62 (2007) 1139–1168.
[18] T. Loughran, B. McDonald, When Is a Liability Not a Liability? Textual
Analysis, Dictionaries, and 10-Ks, Journal of Finance 66 (2011) 35–65.
[19] N. P. Cruz Dı́az, Maña López, Manuel J., J. M. Vázquez, V. P. Álvarez,
A Machine-Learning Approach to Negation and Speculation Detection in
Clinical Texts, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology 63 (2012) 1398–1410.
[20] L. Rokach, R. Romano, O. Maimon, Negation Recognition in Medical Narrative Reports, Information Retrieval 11 (2008) 499–538.

34

[21] N. A. Johnson, R. B. Cooper, Understanding the Influence of Instant Messaging on Ending Concessions During Negotiations, Journal of Management
Information Systems 31 (2015) 311–342.
[22] H. Lai, W.-J. Lin, G. E. Kersten, Effects of Language Familiarity on eNegotiation: Use of Native vs. Nonnative Language, in: Proceedings of the
42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE,
2002, pp. 1–9.
[23] D. P. Twitchell, M. L. Jensen, D. C. Derrick, J. K. Burgoon, J. F. Nunamaker, Negotiation Outcome Classification Using Language Features, Group
Decision and Negotiation 22 (2013) 135–151.
[24] C. M. Fuller, D. P. Biros, J. Burgoon, J. Nunamaker, An Examination
and Validation of Linguistic Constructs for Studying High-Stakes Deception,
Group Decision and Negotiation 22 (2013) 117–134.
[25] L. Zhou, J. K. Burgoon, D. P. Twitchell, T. Qin, J. F. Nunamaker, A
Comparison of Classification Methods for Predicting Deception in ComputerMediated Communication, Journal of Management Information Systems 20
(2004) 139–166.
[26] Y. Niv, R. Daniel, A. Geana, S. J. Gershman, Y. C. Leong, A. Radulescu,
R. C. Wilson, Reinforcement Learning in Multidimensional Environments
Relies on Attention Mechanisms, Journal of Neuroscience 35 (2015) 8145–
8157.
[27] S. J. Gershman, A. Radulescu, K. A. Norman, Y. Niv, O. Sporns, Statistical Computations Underlying the Dynamics of Memory Updating, PLoS
Computational Biology 10 (2014).

35

[28] J. Fiser, P. Berkes, G. Orbán, M. Lengyel, Statistically Optimal Perception
and Learning: From Behavior to Neural Representations, Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 14 (2010) 119–130.
[29] T. D. Wilson, Models in Information Behaviour Research, Journal of Documentation 55 (1999) 249–270.
[30] S. Stieglitz, L. Dang-Xuan, Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media: Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior, Journal of Management
Information Systems 29 (2013) 217–248.
[31] D. N. Trung, T. T. Nguyen, J. J. Jung, D. Choi, Understanding Effect of
Sentiment Content Toward Information Diffusion Pattern in Online Social
Networks: A Case Study on TweetScope, in: P. C. Vinh, V. Alagar, E. Vassev, A. Khare (Eds.), Context-Aware Systems and Applications, volume 128
of Lecture Notes for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2014, pp. 349–358.
[32] R. Aggarwal, R. Gopal, R. Sankaranarayanan, P. V. Singh, Blog, Blogger,
and the Firm: Can Negative Employee Posts Lead to Positive Outcomes?,
Information Systems Research 23 (2012) 306–322.
[33] M. Wiegand, A. Balahur, B. Roth, D. Klakow, A. Montoyo, A Survey on the
Role of Negation in Sentiment Analysis, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on
Negation and Speculation in Natural Language Processing, Association for
Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2010, pp. 60–68.
[34] L. Jia, C. Yu, W. Meng, The Effect of Negation on Sentiment Analysis and
Retrieval Effectiveness, in: D. Cheung (Ed.), Proceeding of the 18th ACM
Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’09), ACM,
New York, NY, 2009, pp. 1827–1830.
36

[35] N. Pröllochs, S. Feuerriegel, D. Neumann, Enhancing Sentiment Analysis of
Financial News by Detecting Negation Scopes, in: 48th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2015, pp. 959–968.
[36] N. Pröllochs, S. Feuerriegel, D. Neumann, Detecting Negation Scopes for
Financial News Sentiment Using Reinforcement Learning, in: 49th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2016, pp. 1164–1173.
[37] M. Taboada, J. Brooke, M. Tofiloski, K. Voll, M. Stede, Lexicon-Based
Methods for Sentiment Analysis, Computational Linguistics 37 (2011) 267–
307.
[38] A. Hogenboom, P. van Iterson, B. Heerschop, F. Frasincar, U. Kaymak, Determining Negation Scope and Strength in Sentiment Analysis, in: IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2011, pp. 2589–
2594.
[39] S. Padmaja, S. Fatima, S. Bandu, Evaluating Sentiment Analysis Methods and Identifying Scope of Negation in Newspaper Articles, International
Journal of Advanced Research in Artificial Intelligence 3 (2014) 1–6.
[40] R. S. Sutton, A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
[41] C. J. C. H. Watkins, P. Dayan, Q-Learning, Machine Learning 8 (1992)
279–292.
[42] J. Hu, M. P. Wellman, Nash Q-Learning for General-Sum Stochastic Games,
Journal of Machine Learning Research 4 (2003) 1039–1069.
[43] L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, A. W. Moore, Reinforcement Learning: A
Survey, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4 (1996) 237–285.
37

[44] B. Pang, L. Lee, Seeing Stars: Exploiting Class Relationships for Sentiment
Categorization with Respect to Rating Scales, in: Proceedings of the 43rd
Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’05),
2005, pp. 115–124.
[45] P. D. Turney, Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down? Semantic Orientation Applied
to Unsupervised Classification of Reviews, Association for Computational
Linguistics, 2002.
[46] A. M. Legg, K. Sweeny, Do You Want the Good News or the Bad News First?
The Nature and Consequences of News Order Preferences, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 40 (2014) 279–288.
[47] M. Dadvar, C. Hauff, F. de Jong, Scope of Negation Detection in Sentiment
Analysis, in: Proceedings of the Dutch-Belgian Information Retrieval Workshop, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2011, pp. 16–20.
[48] J. Muntermann, A. Guettler, Intraday Stock Price Effects of Ad Hoc Disclosures: The German Case, Journal of International Financial Markets,
Institutions and Money 17 (2007) 1–24.
[49] Y. Konchitchki, D. E. O’Leary, Event Study Methodologies in Information
Systems Research, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems
12 (2011) 99–115.
[50] A. C. MacKinlay, Event Studies in Economics and Finance, Journal of
Economic Literature 35 (1997) 13–39.
[51] P. C. Tetlock, M. Saar-Tsechansky, S. Macskassy, More Than Words: Quantifying Language to Measure Firms’ Fundamentals, Journal of Finance 63
(2008) 1437–1467.

38

[52] D. Robey, W. Taggart, Human Information Processing in Information and
Decision Support Systems, MIS Quarterly 6 (1982) 61.
[53] A. Dimoka, P. A. Pavlou, F. D. Davis, NeuroIS: The Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Information Systems Research: Research Commentary,
Information Systems Research 22 (2011) 687–702.
[54] R. Riedl, F. D. Davis, A. R. Hevner, Towards a NeuroIS Research Methodology: Intensifying the Discussion on Methods, Tools, and Measurement,
Journal of the Association for Information Systems 15 (2014) 1–35.
[55] R. K. Minas, R. F. Potter, A. R. Dennis, V. Bartelt, S. Bae, Putting on the
Thinking Cap: Using NeuroIS to Understand Information Processing Biases
in Virtual Teams, Journal of Management Information Systems 30 (2014)
49–82.
[56] A. Dimoka, R. D. Banker, I. Benbasat, F. D. Davis, A. R. Dennis, D. Gefen,
A. Gupta, A. Ischebeck, P. H. Kenning, P. A. Pavlou, et al., On the Use of
Neurophysiological Tools in IS Research: Developing a Research Agenda for
NeuroIS, MIS Quarterly 36 (2012) 679–702.
[57] S. Khemlani, I. Orenes, P. N. Johnson-Laird, Negation: A Theory of Its
Meaning, Representation, and Use,

Journal of Cognitive Psychology 24

(2012) 541–559.
[58] W.-R. Zhang, POOL: A Semantic Model for Approximate Reasoning and
Its Application in Decision Support, Journal of Management Information
Systems 3 (1987) 65–78.
[59] D. S. Modha, R. Ananthanarayanan, S. K. Esser, A. Ndirango, A. J. Sherbondy, R. Singh, Cognitive Computing, Communications of the ACM 54
(2011) 62.
39

