4.6 Article

A Survey on Text Classification: From Traditional to Deep Learning

Publisher

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3495162

Keywords

Deep learning; traditional models; text classification; evaluation metrics; challenges

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2021YFB1714800]
  2. NSFC [U20B2053, 61872022]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Software Development Environment [SKLSDE2020ZX-12]
  4. NSF [III-1763325, III-1909323, III-2106758, SaTC-1930941]
  5. NSF ONR [N00014-18-1-2009]
  6. Lehigh's accelerator grant [S00010293]
  7. CAAI-Huawei MindSpore Open Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper reviews the latest methods in text classification from 1961 to 2021, discussing in detail the technical developments and benchmark datasets for each category, and provides a comprehensive comparison between different techniques and the pros and cons of evaluation metrics.
Text classification is the most fundamental and essential task in natural language processing. The last decade has seen a surge of research in this area due to the unprecedented success of deep learning. Numerous methods, datasets, and evaluation metrics have been proposed in the literature, raising the need for a comprehensive and updated survey. This paper fills the gap by reviewing the state-of-the-art approaches from 1961 to 2021, focusing on models from traditional models to deep learning. We create a taxonomy for text classification according to the text involved and the models used for feature extraction and classification. We then discuss each of these categories in detail, dealing with both the technical developments and benchmark datasets that support tests of predictions. A comprehensive comparison between different techniques, as well as identifying the pros and cons of various evaluation metrics are also provided in this survey. Finally, we conclude by summarizing key implications, future research directions, and the challenges facing the research area.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available