arXiv AI
Beyond a Single Sentiment Score: Topical and Affective Dimensions of Emoji Meaning on Twitter
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25
Two Emojis of Difference: What Multilingual Affective Generation Benchmarks Actually Measure
The paper audits a multilingual affective generation benchmark that uses emoji summaries for Bangla, English, and Hindi sentences. It finds that the benchmark’s conclusions are largely artifacts of the measurement instrument, with no system significantly outperforming another when annotators are treated as random factors. The study shows that annotator identity and output length drive most variance, and proposes a new stable metric called emoji‑affect decodability.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
When AI Rewrites, Classifiers Relax: Uncertainty-Aware Sentiment Analysis on Sarcastic and AI-Paraphrased Social Text
arXiv:2608. 15338v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Sentiment classifiers are increasingly applied to social media content that is either sarcastic or AI-generated --- two distributional regimes where standard evaluations offer little guidance.
arXiv AI
Sep 3
EmoStance: Response-Side Affective-Orientation Control for Empathetic Response Generation via Emoji Weak Supervision
The paper introduces EmoStance, a method for controlling the affective orientation of empathetic responses by leveraging weak supervision from emoji distributions. It builds the EmojiDialogue dataset, extending EmpatheticDialogues with emoji votes and confidence scores, and uses a frozen instruction‑tuned LLM steered by continuous prefix embeddings to generate responses that align with the listener’s stance. In blind pairwise evaluations, EmoStance achieves a 62.2% decisive win rate, notably improving contextual specificity and perceived responsiveness compared to baselines.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 8
Nobody Truly Agrees on Sentiment: Humans, Bespoke Tools, and LLMs Struggle with Social Media Texts
The study evaluates how well three sentiment‑analysis tools (TextBlob, VADER, Twitter‑roBERTa‑base) and three large language models (Qwen3‑32B, GPT‑OSS‑120B, Llama‑4‑Maverick‑17B) agree with six human raters on 100 tweets. Agreement was measured with Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa, revealing only fair inter‑human agreement and higher concordance for binary sentiment labels than for three‑class labels. Twitter‑roBERTa‑base achieved the strongest alignment with humans, especially for negative versus non‑negative sentiment, while the LLMs showed substantial agreement among themselves and moderate to substantial alignment with humans, particularly for positive versus non‑positive classifications. The findings emphasize that domain‑specific fine‑tuning and human‑centered evaluation are essential for reliable social media sentiment analysis.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 25
Machine learning and digital pragmatics: Which word category influences emoji use most?
arXiv:2608.21975v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study examines the performance of the state-of-the-art MARBERT model in identifying the lexical/pragmatic category associated with emoji use on X...
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Sep 2
EmoStance: Response-Side Affective-Orientation Control for Empathetic Response Generation via Emoji Weak Supervision
The paper introduces EmoStance, a method for controlling the affective orientation of empathetic responses in dialogue systems. It leverages weak supervision from multi‑annotator emoji distributions to create a latent control space that approximates listener stance, and uses a frozen instruction‑tuned LLM steered by continuous prefix embeddings. Evaluation shows a 62.2% decisive win rate over baselines, especially in contextual specificity and perceived responsiveness.