| Literature DB >> 35378816 |
Abdullah Y Muaad1,2, Hanumanthappa Jayappa Davanagere1, J V Bibal Benifa3, Amerah Alabrah4, Mufeed Ahmed Naji Saif5, D Pushpa6, Mugahed A Al-Antari7, Taha M Alfakih8.
Abstract
Social media networking is a prominent topic in real life, particularly at the current moment. The impact of comments has been investigated in several studies. Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram are just a few of the social media networks that are used to broadcast different news worldwide. In this paper, a comprehensive AI-based study is presented to automatically detect the Arabic text misogyny and sarcasm in binary and multiclass scenarios. The key of the proposed AI approach is to distinguish various topics of misogyny and sarcasm from Arabic tweets in social media networks. A comprehensive study is achieved for detecting both misogyny and sarcasm via adopting seven state-of-the-art NLP classifiers: ARABERT, PAC, LRC, RFC, LSVC, DTC, and KNNC. To fine tune, validate, and evaluate all of these techniques, two Arabic tweets datasets (i.e., misogyny and Abu Farah datasets) are used. For the experimental study, two scenarios are proposed for each case study (misogyny or sarcasm): binary and multiclass problems. For misogyny detection, the best accuracy is achieved using the AraBERT classifier with 91.0% for binary classification scenario and 89.0% for the multiclass scenario. For sarcasm detection, the best accuracy is achieved using the AraBERT as well with 88% for binary classification scenario and 77.0% for the multiclass scenario. The proposed method appears to be effective in detecting misogyny and sarcasm in social media platforms with suggesting AraBERT as a superior state-of-the-art deep learning classifier.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35378816 PMCID: PMC8976616 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7937667
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Architecture of misogyny and sarcasm detection model.
Misogyny data distribution for binary class scenario
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Non-misogyny | لا توجد كراهية | 3,061 | 2,143 | 918 |
| 2. | Misogyny | كراهية النساء توجد | 4,805 | 3,364 | 1,442 |
Misogyny data distribution for multi-class scenario
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Discredit | تشويه السمعة | 2,327 | 1,629 | 489 |
| 2. | Stereo typing & objectification | الكتابة والصياغة المجسمة | 290 | 203 | 61 |
| 3. | Damning | اللعنة | 256 | 179 | 54 |
| 4. | Threat of violence | التهديد بالعنف | 175 | 123 | 37 |
| 5. | Derailing | الخروج عن السكة | 59 | 41 | 12 |
| 6. | Dominance | هيمنة | 38 | 27 | 8 |
| 7. | Sexual harassment | التحرش الجنسي | 17 | 12 | 4 |
| 8. | Non-misogyny | لا توجد كراهية | 3,388 | 2,372 | 711 |
Sarcasm data distribution for binary class scenario
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Non-sarcastic | لا توجد سخرية | 12,559 | 8,791 | 3,768 |
| 2. | Sarcastic | سخرية | 2,989 | 2,092 | 897 |
Sarcasm data distribution for multi-class scenario
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Positive | سخرية إيجابية | 2,577 | 1,804 | 773 |
| 2. | Negative | سخرية سلبية | 6,298 | 4,409 | 1,889 |
| 3. | Neutral | سخرية معتدلة | 6,495 | 4,547 | 1,948 |
Arabic misogyny detection evaluation results for binary classification task.
| Classifier model | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAC | 81 | 84 | 86 | 85 |
| LRC | 81 | 81 | 90 | 86 |
| RFC | 62 | 62 | 67 | 76 |
| LSVC | 83 | 85 | 88 | 86 |
| DTC | 70 | 74 | 78 | 76 |
| KNNC | 65 | 64 | 98 | 78 |
| AraBERT |
| — | — |
|
The bold values represent the highest values of evaluation metrics achieved by the corresponding classifier model.
Figure 2Comparison evaluation results for misogyny binary classification scenario in terms of overall accuracy.
Arabic misogyny detection evaluation results for multiclass classification task.
| Classifier model | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAC | 72 | 72 | 72 | 72 |
| LRC | 69 | 68 | 68 | 68 |
| RFC | 40 | 39 | 39 | 39 |
| LSVC | 74 | 73 | 73 |
|
| DTC | 56 | 56 | 56 | 56 |
| KNNC | 44 | 43 | 43 | 43 |
| ARABERT |
| — | — | — |
The bold values represent the highest values of evaluation metrics achieved by the corresponding classifier model.
Figure 3Comparison evaluation results for misogyny multiclass classification scenario in terms of overall accuracy.
Arabic sarcasm detection evaluation results for sentiment classification task: binary scenario.
| Classifier model | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAC | 83 | 81 | 83 |
|
| LRC | 83 | 81 | 83 | 77 |
| RFC | 82 | 68 | 82 | 74 |
| LSVC | 84 | 82 | 84 |
|
| DTC | 78 | 76 | 78 | 77 |
| KNNC | 83 | 79 | 83 | 76 |
| ARABERT |
| — | — | 77 |
The bold values represent the highest values of evaluation metrics achieved by the corresponding classifier model.
Figure 4Comparison evaluation results for sarcasm binary classification scenario in terms of overall accuracy.
Detection evaluation results of Arabic sentiment compared with different classifiers: multiclass scenario.
| Classifier model | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAC | 71 | 68 | 71 | 69 |
| LRC | 73 | 73 | 73 | 68 |
| RFC | 68 | 46 | 66 | 55 |
| LSVC | 73 | 69 | 73 | 70 |
| DTC | 63 | 62 | 63 | 63 |
| KNNC | 68 | 59 | 68 | 57 |
| ARABERT |
| — | — |
|
The bold values represent the highest values of evaluation metrics achieved by the corresponding classifier model.
Figure 5Comparison evaluation results for sarcasm multiclass classification scenario in terms of overall accuracy.