Cloud Hosting

Extensive discussion of experiments, results, and analysis on our introduced dataset for the proposed method and existing state-of-the-art baselines are presented below.

The following baseline methods are compared to our proposed approach.

XLMR(^{[FT+LS+RF]})86: In this method, a pre-trained BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) model is fine-tuned (FT) to perform sentiment analysis. To reduce overfitting, the authors incorporated label smoothing (LS) and rule-based features (RF) such as negation handling and sentiment shift detection. This model is used for emoji, sentiment, and emotion analysis tasks.

Multilingual BERT (mBERT)87: The authors utilized a transformer-based language model called mBERT to learn contextual embeddings for words in multiple languages. mBERT was pre-trained on large amounts of monolingual and multilingual text data and fine-tuned on the SentiMix code-mixed dataset for sentiment detection and emotion recognition.

XLMR(^{MTL})87: The authors used XLM-R, a cross-lingual language model based on a transformer architecture that was pre-trained on a larger dataset including code-mixed text. XLM-R can encode and decode text in multiple languages and has achieved state-of-the-art results on various NLP tasks, including sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. They fine-tuned XLM-R on the SentiMix code-mixed dataset for sentiment detection and emotion recognition.

TL-XLMR(^{[LS]})6: To detect sentiment and recognize emotions in the SentiMix code-mixed dataset, the authors employed an end-to-end multitask framework based on a transformer architecture. They fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa (XLMR), a pre-trained cross-lingual embedding model, with task-specific data to improve model efficiency through transfer learning.

TL-mBERT(^{[LS]})6: In this ablation experiment, the authors replaced the XLMR module with mBERT to investigate the significance of the sentence encoder in TL-XLMR(^{[LS]}). The model was fine-tuned on the SentiMix code-mixed dataset to perform sentiment detection and emotion recognition.

Our suggested model is put into practice using PyTorch, a well-liked Python deep-learning toolkit. We employ the F1-score (F1) as our evaluation metric for both emotion and sentiment prediction and for emoji we used Jaccord Index (JI), macro F1-score. We utilize Adam optimizer88 and do a grid search for 200 epochs to improve the model. We use Transformer Encoder with two layers our embedding size is 300 which we find empirically (checked for 100, 150, 200 and 300). The dropout rate is set at 0.5 while the learning rate is set at 0.05. The auto-latent encoders dimension was found to be 2048 using empirical techniques. The discriminator, ({mathcal {D}}), is composed of two fully connected layers, a ReLU layer. The learning rate is set to 1e-3, weight decay of 1e-4, and momentum of 0.3. By contrasting the F1 and accuracy scores with different baselines, the efficacy of our strategy is assessed. In the CM-RFT, the kernel is dynamically computed from the input using a fully connected layer. The kernel sizes are [3, 5, 7, 31*3], and each module has 4 heads (half the number of heads in the transformer base model).

For the emoji detection tasks, we consider the Jaccard Index (JI)89 and Hamming loss (HL)90 metrics to evaluate the performance of our proposed system. Additionally, we also report the micro-averaged F191 score and Accuracy values for the same (as shown in Table8). JI, HL, and micro-averaged F1 are popular choices to evaluate multi-label classification tasks. For the sentiment and emotion detection tasks (as shown in Tables9 and 10), we report the macro-averaged F1 score91 and accuracy values for our proposed model.

Micro-averaged F1 score: For multi-label classification tasks, the micro-averaged F1 score is a commonly used metric that computes the F1 score globally by counting the true positives (TP), false negatives (FN), and false positives (FP) across all labels. The formula for the micro-averaged F1 score is: (F1_{micro} = frac{2 * sum _{i=1}^n TP_i}{2 * sum _{i=1}^n TP_i + sum _{i=1}^n FP_i + sum _{i=1}^n FN_i})

Macro-averaged F1 score: The macro-averaged F1 score is another commonly used metric for multi-label classification tasks. It computes the F1 score for each label and then takes the average of these F1 scores. The formula for the macro-averaged F1 score is: (F1_{macro} = frac{1}{n} sum _{i=1}^n frac{2 * TP_i}{2 * TP_i + FP_i + FN_i})

Accuracy: Accuracy is a metric that measures the proportion of correctly classified labels to the total number of labels. The formula for accuracy is: (A = frac{sum _{i=1}^n TP_i}{sum _{i=1}^n TP_i + sum _{i=1}^n FP_i})

Hamming Loss: The Hamming loss measures the proportion of misclassified labels to the total number of labels. The formula for Hamming loss is: (HL = frac{1}{n} sum _{i=1}^n frac{xor(Y_i, hat{Y_i})}{m}) where n is the number of instances, m is the number of labels, (Y_i) is the true label vector for instance i, (hat{Y_i}) is the predicted label vector for instance i, and xor is the logical XOR operator.

Jaccard Index: The Jaccard Index measures the similarity between two sets by computing the ratio of the size of their intersection to the size of their union, and it is used to measure the similarity between the predicted and true label sets in multi-label classification. The formula for the Jaccard Index is: (JI = frac{1}{n} sum _{i=1}^n frac{|Y_i cap hat{Y_i}|}{|Y_i cup hat{Y_i}|}) where n is the number of instances, (Y_i) is the true label set for instance i, and (hat{Y_i}) is the predicted label set for instance i. The Jaccard similarity is computed as the size of the intersection of the predicted and true label sets divided by the size of their union. The resulting score ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 representing the perfect similarity between the predicted and true label sets.

Tables8, 9, and 10 present the performance of CM-T, CM-FT, and CM-RFT models for the emoji, sentiment, and emotion tasks in UTL, DTL, and TTL setups. These setups investigate the effectiveness of multi-task learning in improving overall system performance compared to single-task learning.

The results reported in Table8 are the performance metrics of three different models (CM-T, CM-FT, CM-RFT) trained on three different setups (uni-task learning, dual-task learning, and tri-task learning) for the task of emoji detection.

In the uni-task learning setup, where each task is solved individually, the performance of the CM-RFT model improves as more features are added. Specifically, the performance improves as we go from using only character embeddings to character embeddings + Elmo embeddings + TF-IDF. The F1 score increases from 0.59 to 0.64, the accuracy score from 0.62 to 0.67, while the hamming loss decrease from 0.15 to 0.13, and the Jaccard index increases from 0.52 to 0.56. These results suggest that using multiple features can improve the performance of the emoji detection task.

In the dual-task learning setup, where the emoji task is jointly learned with sentiment/emotion tasks are jointly learned, the performance of the CM-RFT model further improves compared to the uni-task learning setup. The improvement is more evident when the model is trained on Character embeddings + Elmo embeddings + TF-IDF features. The F1 score increases from 0.64 to 0.68, the accuracy score from 0.67 to 0.71, while the Hamming loss decrease from 0.13 to 0.07, and the Jaccard index increases from 0.56 to 0.61, respectively. These results suggest that training the model on multiple tasks can lead to further improvements in the performance of the emoji detection task.

In the tri-task learning setup, where sentiment, emotion, and emoji detection tasks are jointly learned, the performance of the CM-RFT model improves even further compared to the dual-task learning setup. The F1 score increases from 0.68 to 0.73, the accuracy score from 0.71 to 0.75, while the Hamming loss decrease from 0.07 to 0.054, and the Jaccard index increases from 0.61 to 0.69. These results suggest that joint learning of multiple tasks leads to significant improvements in the performance of the emoji detection task.

Overall, the results suggest that the performance of the emoji detection task can be improved by using multiple features and by training the model on multiple tasks. Additionally, the results suggest that sentiment and emotion have a significant impact on the performance of the emoji detection task as joint learning of these tasks leads to significant improvements in performance.

The sentiment classification task results are presented in Table9 for the joint learning of emotion and emoji tasks. In the uni-task setup, where each task is performed independently, the CM-RFT model achieves the highest performance for the sentiment task with an F1 score of 72.65 and accuracy of 75.19. This suggests that including extra features, such as Elmo embeddings and TF-IDF features, can enhance sentiment detection performance across all models compared to those utilizing only character embedding features.

In the dual-task setup, when sentiment and emoji tasks are jointly learned, the F1 score and accuracy score of the sentiment detection task improve from 72.65 and 75.19, respectively, in the uni-task setup to 78.22 and 79.21, respectively, when using character embeddings, Elmo embeddings, and TF-IDF features. Similarly, when sentiment and emotion tasks are jointly learned, the F1 score and accuracy score of the sentiment detection task improve from 72.65 and 75.19, respectively, in the uni-task setup to 74.64 and 77.31, respectively, when using character embeddings, Elmo embeddings, and TF-IDF features.

In the tri-task setup, where sentiment, emotion, and emoji detection tasks are solved jointly, the CM-RFT model achieves the best performance for the sentiment task with an F1 score of 82.35 and accuracy of 83.14, followed by the CM-FT model with an F1 score of 75.42 and accuracy of 79.26. This again confirms that multitask learning helps to improve sentiment detection performance when it is learned jointly with other tasks.

The findings indicate that integrating emotion and emoji detection tasks into the sentiment classification task can enhance the models performance. The tri-task learning setup demonstrated the highest performance for the sentiment task, implying that incorporating these extra tasks can improve the models comprehension of the sentiment expressed in text. The enhanced performance is likely due to the additional contextual information that emotions and emojis provide, particularly in cases where the sentiment is complicated or sarcastic. Therefore, incorporating emotion and emoji detection tasks could be a useful technique for enhancing the performance of sentiment classification models. Moreover, incorporating additional features, such as Elmo embeddings and TF-IDF features, can also improve the sentiment detection performance.

According to the results presented in Table10, we can observe that the performance of the emotion task increases as we transition from single-task learning to dual-task and eventually to tri-task learning. In the single-task setup, the CM-RFT model outperforms the CM-T and CM-FT models across all three feature combinations, indicating that incorporating sentiment and emoji information can enhance the emotion detection tasks performance. In the dual-task setup with emoji, the performance of all models is considerably lower than in the single-task setup. However, the performance improves as more features are incorporated, and the CM-RFT model achieves the best results with all three features. This suggests that utilizing various feature types can benefit joint learning of emoji and emotion detection, and the tri-task setup may provide further improvement. In the dual-task setup with the sentiment, the performance is better than with emoji. The addition of Elmo embeddings and TF-IDF features leads to consistent performance improvement, with the CM-RFT model again achieving the best results. This implies that joint learning of sentiment and emotion detection can also benefit from the use of multiple feature types.

The presence of sentiment and emoji information appears to enhance the emotion tasks performance, as suggested by the results. The best performance for the emotion task was obtained in the tri-task learning setup, which involved jointly learning sentiment, emotion, and emoji detection tasks. The improvement in performance can be attributed to the fact that sentiment and emoji provide additional contextual information that can help in better disambiguation of emotions.

The results also suggest that multitask learning is more effective than single-task learning, especially when the tasks are related, such as emotion, sentiment, and emoji detection. The emotion tasks performance improved consistently as we progressed from single-task to dual-task and finally to tri-task learning. This indicates that joint learning of related tasks can better utilize the available information and improve the overall performance of the system.

The presented results in Table11 indicate that the CM-RFT model proposed in this study performs better than the state-of-the-art models for both sentiment and emoji detection tasks. In the single-task scenario, mBERT achieved the highest accuracy of 63.77% and an F1 score of 61.54% for the emoji detection task. However, in the multi-task setting, the proposed CM-RFT model surpasses all other models, achieving an accuracy of 75.81% and an F1 score of 73.25%. This shows that the proposed model effectively uses multi-task learning to improve the performance of both tasks. Moreover, the model also shows promising results for the unsupervised emotion detection task, with an F1 score of 60.53% and an accuracy of 63.73%. This demonstrates that the zero-shot approach utilized in the proposed model is effective in detecting emotions from the text even without labeled data.

When focusing on the emoji prediction task, the proposed CM-RFT model outperforms both single-task and multi-task models significantly. The model achieves an accuracy of 75.81%, which is approximately 12% higher than the accuracy of the best-performing single-task model (mBERT) and approximately 9% higher than the accuracy of the best-performing multi-task model (TL-XLMR(^{[LS]})). Moreover, the models F1 score is 73.25%, which is approximately 12% higher than the F1 score of the best-performing single-task model (mBERT) and approximately 8% higher than the F1 score of the best-performing multi-task model (TL-XLMR(^{[LS]]})).

We conducted additional experiments with our proposed model to compare it fairly with the single- and multi-task baselines discussed earlier. As none of the baseline models addressed unsupervised classification, they couldnt generate scores for the emotion task, unlike our proposed CM-RFT model that solves sentiment and multi-label emoji detection in a supervised setting and emotion detection in an unsupervised setting using a zero-shot approach. Therefore, we trained two versions of the CM-RFT model: one in a single-task setting (CM-RFT(^{STL}) (_{[-Emo]})) for all tasks and another in a multitask setting (CM-RFT(^{MTL}) (_{[-Emo]})) without the emotion task. The results are presented in Table11.

Comparing the performance of CM-RFT(^{STL}) (_{[-Emo]}) with single-task models XLMR, XLMR(^{[FT+LS+RF]}), mBERT, we observe that STL-CM-RFT outperforms all these models in terms of accuracy and F1 scores for the emoji and sentiment tasks. For example, the accuracy of CM-RFT(^{STL}) (_{[-Emo]}) is 67.30% for the emoji task, while the highest accuracy achieved by single-task models is 63.77% by mBERT. Similarly, CM-RFT(^{STL}) (_{[-Emo]}) achieves an F1 score of 74.64% for sentiment detection, while the highest F1 score achieved by single-task models is 70.32% by mBERT. These results indicate that the inclusion of the unsupervised emotion task has indeed helped the model perform better on supervised tasks.

Comparing the performance of CM-RFT(^{MTL}) (_{[-Emo]}) with multi-task models MT-XLMR, TL-XLMR(^{[LS]}), TL-mBERT[LS], we observe that CM-RFT(^{MTL}) (_{[-Emo]}) outperforms all these models in terms of accuracy and F1 scores for both emoji and sentiment tasks. For example, the accuracy of CM-RFT(^{MTL}) (_{[-Emo]}) is 71.68% for the emoji task, while the highest accuracy achieved by multi-task models is 66.83% by TL-XLMR(^{[LS]}). Similarly, MT-CM-RFT achieves an F1 score of 78.22% for sentiment detection, while the highest F1 score achieved by multi-task models is 72.58% by MT-XLMR. These results indicate that the inclusion of the unsupervised emotion task has indeed helped the model perform better in both single-task and multi-task settings.

We evaluate the performance of Llama model on the emotion recognition task by fine-tuning it for three epochs. Our model yielded an F1 score of 60.53 for emotion recognition which positions closely alongside the Llama model, which achieved an F1 score of 61.11. These results underscore the effectiveness of our proposed approach in tackling emotion recognition tasks, indicating its potential for practical applications in natural language processing.

To sum up, the CM-RFT model we proposed outperforms the current state-of-the-art models in both sentiment and emoji detection tasks. Our results indicate that taking advantage of multi-task learning and utilizing a zero-shot approach for unsupervised emotion detection can lead to substantial improvements in task performance. For the emoji prediction task, our proposed model achieves a remarkable improvement over the best-performing single-task and multi-task models, demonstrating the efficacy of our approach.

To assess the effectiveness of our model, we conducted comparisons with several papers and their corresponding models.

Comparison Study 1: Emotion Detection in Code-Mixed Roman Urdu - English Text51. Models: We compared our model with BERT and XLM-RoBERTa. Dataset Used: We used the Code-Mixed Roman Urdu - English Text dataset. The results, as shown in Table12, indicate that our model outperforms both BERT and XLM-RoBERTa with an F1 score of 0.69, demonstrating its effectiveness in detecting emotions in code-mixed text.

Comparison Study 2: A self-attention hybrid emoji prediction model for code-mixed language92 Models: We compared our model with BARF. Dataset Used: We used the Hinglish Emoji Prediction (HEP) dataset. The results, as presented in Table13, indicate that our model achieves a higher F1 score of 0.64 compared to BARF, demonstrating its superior performance in predicting emojis in code-mixed language.

Comparison Study 3: Multitasking of sentiment detection and emotion recognition in code-mixed Hinglish data6 Models: We compared our model with TL-XLMR(^{MTL}_{LS}). Dataset Used: We used the SemEval-2020 Task 9 dataset93. Table14 displays the results, showing that our model achieves higher F1 scores for both emotion detection (76.22) and sentiment analysis (70.31) compared to TL-XLMR(^{MTL}_{LS}), indicating its effectiveness in multitasking for sentiment and emotion recognition in code-mixed Hinglish data.

Table15 shows the results of four ablation experiments aimed at evaluating the contribution of different components in the proposed CM-RFT framework. The four components examined are the GLU module, the auto-encoder and ANP module, the self-attention mechanism, and the collective combination of GLU, self-attention, ANP, and AE modules.

The results indicate that each component contributes to the overall performance of the CM-RFT framework. Removing any of these components leads to a significant decline in F1 scores for all three tasks, especially when all four modules are removed (row 4). This suggests that the proposed framework is well-designed, and each module plays a critical role in its success. Specifically, the GLU module seems to be a crucial part of the framework (row 1). The removal of this component leads to a significant decrease in performance across all three tasks, highlighting the importance of non-linear transformations in the text encoder. Similarly, removing the auto-encoder and ANP module leads to a drop in performance (row 2), indicating the importance of these unsupervised pre-training methods in learning useful feature representations. Moreover, the self-attention mechanism appears to be more effective than linear concatenation in fusing the output features of the GLU and Trans Encoder modules (row 3). This result confirms the superior performance of self-attention in capturing long-range dependencies and modeling interactions among input tokens. Finally, the collective combination of GLU, SA, ANP, and AE modules is a highly effective feature learning mechanism (row 4), but it also leads to higher computational costs. The result suggests that one can still achieve decent performance with a simpler linear concatenation mechanism, albeit at the cost of reduced model capacity and expressive power.

In summary, the ablation experiments demonstrate the importance of each module in the proposed CM-RFT framework for multi-label emoji prediction. The findings can guide the design of future models and shed light on the underlying mechanisms that contribute to their success.

Table16 shows the results of four ablation experiments where each experiment is compared to the proposed CM-RFT containing all three loss functions (({mathcal {L}}_{ad}), ({mathcal {L}}_{re}), and ({mathcal {L}}_{al})) for the emoji, emotion, and sentiment tasks.

The F1 scores for all three tasks consistently decrease in each ablation experiment when any of the loss functions are removed. The largest decrease in performance is observed when all three loss functions are removed, indicating that each loss function plays an important role in the models performance. Specifically, removing the ({mathcal {L}}_{ad}) and ({mathcal {L}}_{re}) loss functions has the greatest negative impact on the models performance compared to removing only one of these loss functions. This suggests that these loss functions contribute significantly to the models ability to capture relevant features for both the adversarial training and reconstruction of the input data.

In terms of the contributions of the individual loss functions, the adversarial loss (({mathcal {L}}_{ad})) appears to have a slightly larger impact on performance compared to the alignment loss (({mathcal {L}}_{al})) and reconstruction loss (({mathcal {L}}_{re})), especially for the emoji and emotion detection tasks. This indicates that adversarial loss plays an important role in the models ability to distinguish between different classes for these tasks. On the other hand, the alignment loss and reconstruction loss appear to be more important for sentiment detection.

Overall, these results demonstrate the importance of the proposed loss functions for effective training of the multitask emoji, emotion, and sentiment detection system. These findings can be used to guide the development of more effective training strategies for multitasking learning models in the future. For example, incorporating additional loss functions or modifying the weighting of existing loss functions may improve the models performance. Additionally, these results suggest that the importance of different loss functions may vary depending on the specific tasks being performed and the data being used, highlighting the importance of careful analysis and selection of loss functions in the design of multitask learning models.

In this section, we provide a qualitative analysis of our proposed multitask framework, which takes into account the relationship between emoji, sentiment, and emotion, as we previously mentioned. To illustrate the impact of these tasks on one another, we have selected several examples from the SENTIMOJI dataset and present them in Table17.

Observation 1: In the first sentence, the model correctly predicts a heart emoji, positive sentiment, and joy as the emotion. The model seems to have picked up on the positive sentiment and joy from the words too good and dont know respectively, and predicted the heart emoji to match the positive sentiment. Moreover, the word bhai (brother) may imply a friendly or affectionate tone, leading to the identification of the heart emoji. Finally, the presence of the word joy or similar words in the training data might have helped the model to identify the emotion accurately.

Observation 2: In the second sentence, the model correctly predicts the negative sentiment, but the predicted emoji is wrong. The model predicted a pouting face instead of an angry face, which could be because the pouting face emoji can also indicate dissatisfaction or annoyance, which might be related to pride. Additionally, the emotion is misclassified as disgust instead of anger, which could be because of the strong negative sentiment and the use of words like failure and cant do this.

Observation 3: In the third sentence, the model correctly predicts the Face With Open Mouth, Throwing Up emoji, indicating disgust, along with the negative sentiment. The sentence contains words like missing, which suggests a negative sentiment, and the use of the Face With Open Mouth, Throwing Up emoji, and disgust emotion can be related to the revulsion expressed in the sentence.

Observation 4: In the first multi-label sentence, the model correctly predicts the negative sentiment and joy as the emotion, but only partially predicts the emojis. The use of hardik subhkamnaye and Congratulations sir ji in the sentence indicates a positive sentiment and the use of Dobara pm banee suggests a sense of achievement, which could explain the use of the heart and sparkles emojis. The misclassification of the smiling face emoji could be due to the lack of contextual information or insufficient training data.

Observation 5: In the second multi-label sentence, the model correctly predicts the negative sentiment but misclassifies the emotion as disgust instead of anger. For the emojis, the model predicted pouting face, crying face, and dissapointed face, but the original annotations have pouting face, angry face, and Face With Open Mouth, Throwing Up. This could be because the model picked up on the negative sentiment and the use of words like respect, anything, and woman, which might have led to the prediction of the pouting face emoji, while the crying face and dissapointed face emojis could be related to the negative sentiment.

Observation 6: In the third multi-label sentence, the model correctly identifies the sentiment as negative but wrongly predicts the emotion as anger instead of sad. The model also partially predicts the emojis, which may be due to the presence of multiple emotions in the sentence. To improve the prediction, the model could be trained on more data that contains similar phrases and words to better distinguish between different negative emotions and emojis.

The analysis of the incorrect predictions revealed several common error patterns, which are summarized below:

Ambiguity in Emoji Interpretation: The model often struggles with emojis that have multiple interpretations depending on the context. For example, the emoji can represent both laughter and tears of joy, leading to misclassifications.

Negation and Sarcasm: Negation and sarcasm in text can lead to misinterpretations by the model, especially in sentiment analysis. For instance, the phrase not bad may be interpreted as positive by the model, leading to misclassification.

Lack of Context: The model sometimes fails to capture the context of a sentence, leading to errors in sentiment and emotion classification. For example, short or contextually ambiguous sentences may be misclassified.

Data Imbalance: Imbalance in the distribution of classes can lead to biases in the models predictions, especially for minority classes. This is particularly evident in emotion classification, where some classes have fewer examples than others.

Out-of-Vocabulary Words: The presence of out-of-vocabulary words in the text can lead to errors, especially when the model is unable to capture their semantics. This is more common in emoji and sentiment analysis tasks.

These error patterns highlight the challenges faced by the proposed CM-RFT model in understanding and interpreting text across different tasks. Addressing these challenges requires further research into more robust modeling techniques, better handling of context and ambiguity, and mitigation of biases in the data.

The joint learning of sentiment and emotion tasks with the emoji prediction task may have benefited the performance of the emoji task. This is because emotions and sentiments can provide additional context for the model to predict the appropriate emojis. For example, in the first correct prediction sample, the model was able to correctly predict the heart emoji, which may have been influenced by the positive sentiment and joyful emotion predicted for the sentence. Similarly, in the second incorrect prediction sample, the model correctly predicted the negative sentiment but misclassified the emotion and emoji, suggesting that it may not have fully captured the nuances of the text.

Single-label emojis can be a risk in multilabel emoji prediction because the emojis can have different meanings in different contexts, and a single emoji may not be able to capture all the nuances of the text. For example, the pouting face emoji can be used to express anger, disappointment, or sadness, and without additional context, it can be difficult to determine the exact emotion being conveyed. We observe in the incorrect prediction samples, that the model has predicted some of the emojis correctly while missing some. It is better than having fully incorrect predictions because it shows that the model has some understanding of the context and can predict the relevant emojis to some extent. However, there is still room for improvement in the models performance.

To improve the models predictions, we can consider the following steps:

Increase the training data: The model might benefit from additional training data to capture the various nuances of language and emotions.

Incorporate context: The model might benefit from incorporating the context of the sentence to better identify the sentiment, emoji, and emotion.

Use pre-trained language models: The model might benefit from using pre-trained language models that can capture the semantic meaning of words and phrases.

Regularize the model: The model might benefit from regularization techniques to prevent overfitting and improve generalization.

Analyze and correct errors: Analyzing the models errors and correcting them might help improve the models performance over time.

We perform a study using ChatGPT(https://chat.openai.com/) to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed framework. We notice that CM-RFT has an overwhelming performance advantage over ChatGPT. A few sample predictions from ChatGPT on the TASKS task are shown below:

Prompt: Read these hinglish utterances and find the suitable emojis, emotion, and sentiment:

tere liye chand nhi la sakta baby actually tu bhaad mein ja

Tere ghamand k karan hi aaj congress k ye halat hai ... failure hai tu Bhai .. Tujhse na ho payega

Congress ki sarker mai cylinder he gayab ho gaya tha

Human Annotators:

Emoji Label: , ,

Emotion Label: Anger, Anger, Disgust.

Sentiment Label: Negative, Negative, Negative

Proposed_MODEL:

Emoji Label: , ,

Emotion Label: Anger, Disgust, Disgust.

Sentiment Label: Negative, Negative, Negative

ChatGPT:

Emoji Label: , ,

Emotion Label: Dismissive, Anger, Confusion.

Sentiment Label: Negative, Negative, Neutral (depending on the context, it could be interpreted as negative)

In our analysis, it is evident that our model yields results akin to ChatGPT. While ChatGPT is renowned for its high performance, our model demonstrates proficiency, particularly in handling codemixed sentences.

While our proposed CM-RFT model demonstrates strong performance across multiple tasks, there are several limitations and potential biases that need to be addressed:

Data Bias: The performance of the model heavily relies on the quality and representativeness of the training data. Biases present in the training data, such as underrepresentation of certain demographics or topics, can lead to biased predictions by the model.

Language Bias: The models performance may vary across different languages due to differences in linguistic structures, cultural nuances, and availability of training data. It may perform better on languages that are well-represented in the training data compared to those that are not.

Context Sensitivity: The models performance is influenced by the context in which the text is presented. It may struggle with contextually ambiguous or sarcastic text, leading to misinterpretations.

Generalization: The models ability to generalize to unseen data or domains is limited by the diversity and representativeness of the training data. It may perform well on data similar to the training data but struggle with out-of-domain or adversarial examples.

Interpretability: The complex architecture of the proposed CM-RFT model may hinder its interpretability, making it challenging to understand how and why certain predictions are made. This lack of interpretability can limit the models usefulness in real-world applications where transparency and accountability are important.

Addressing these limitations and biases requires careful consideration of model design, training data, evaluation metrics, and ethical considerations. Future research should focus on developing more robust and fair AI models that are capable of handling diverse languages, cultures, and contexts while ensuring transparency, interpretability, and accountability. Additionally, efforts should be made to collect more diverse and representative training data and to develop evaluation metrics that account for biases and fairness concerns. By addressing these challenges, we can build AI models that are more reliable, equitable, and trustworthy for real-world applications.

Continued here:
Predicting multi-label emojis, emotions, and sentiments in code-mixed texts using an emojifying sentiments framework ... - Nature.com