An Empirical Evaluation of Text Representation Schemes on Multilingual Social Web to Filter the Textual Aggression
April 16, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sandip Modha, Prasenjit Majumder
arXiv ID
1904.08770
Category
cs.IR: Information Retrieval
Cross-listed
cs.CL,
cs.SI
Citations
4
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
This paper attempt to study the effectiveness of text representation schemes on two tasks namely: User Aggression and Fact Detection from the social media contents. In User Aggression detection, The aim is to identify the level of aggression from the contents generated in the Social media and written in the English, Devanagari Hindi and Romanized Hindi. Aggression levels are categorized into three predefined classes namely: `Non-aggressive`, `Overtly Aggressive`, and `Covertly Aggressive`. During the disaster-related incident, Social media like, Twitter is flooded with millions of posts. In such emergency situations, identification of factual posts is important for organizations involved in the relief operation. We anticipated this problem as a combination of classification and Ranking problem. This paper presents a comparison of various text representation scheme based on BoW techniques, distributed word/sentence representation, transfer learning on classifiers. Weighted $F_1$ score is used as a primary evaluation metric. Results show that text representation using BoW performs better than word embedding on machine learning classifiers. While pre-trained Word embedding techniques perform better on classifiers based on deep neural net. Recent transfer learning model like ELMO, ULMFiT are fine-tuned for the Aggression classification task. However, results are not at par with pre-trained word embedding model. Overall, word embedding using fastText produce best weighted $F_1$-score than Word2Vec and Glove. Results are further improved using pre-trained vector model. Statistical significance tests are employed to ensure the significance of the classification results. In the case of lexically different test Dataset, other than training Dataset, deep neural models are more robust and perform substantially better than machine learning classifiers.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Information Retrieval
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
π
π
Old Age
Neural Graph Collaborative Filtering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
BERT4Rec: Sequential Recommendation with Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer
R.I.P.
π
404 Not Found
Graph Neural Networks for Social Recommendation
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Personalized Top-N Sequential Recommendation via Convolutional Sequence Embedding
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted