Online discussion forums are widely used for active textual interaction between lecturers and students, and to see how the students have progressed in a learning process. The objective of this study is to compare appropriate machine-learning models to assess sentiments and Bloom\'s epistemic taxonomy based on textual comments in educational discussion forums. Our proposed method is called the hierarchical approach of Bloom-Epistemic and Sentiment Analysis (BE-Sent). The research methodology consists of three main steps. The first step is the data collection from the internal discussion forum and YouTube comments of a Web Programming channel. The next step is text preprocessing to annotate the text and clear unimportant words. Furthermore, with the text dataset that has been successfully cleaned, sentiment analysis and epistemic categorization will be done in each sentence of the text. Sentiment analysis is divided into three categories: positive, negative, and neutral. Bloom\'s epistemic is divided into six categories: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. This research has succeeded in producing a course learning subsystem that assesses opinions based on text reviews of discussion forums according to the category of sentiment and epistemic analysis.

We present a novel combination of dynamic embedded topic models and change-point detection to explore diachronic change of lexical semantic modality in classical and early Christian Latin. We demonstrate several methods for finding and characterizing patterns in the output, and relating them to traditional scholarship in Comparative Literature and Classics. This simple approach to unsupervised models of semantic change can be applied to any suitable corpus, and we conclude with future directions and refinements aiming to allow noisier, less-curated materials to meet that threshold.

Language is a dynamic aspect of our culture that changes when expressed in different technologies/communities. Online social networks have enabled the diffusion and evolution of different dialects, including African American English (AAE). However, this increased usage is not without barriers. One particular barrier is how sentiment (Vader, TextBlob, and Flair) and toxicity (Google's Perspective and the open-source Detoxify) methods present biases towards utterances with AAE expressions. Consider Google's Perspective to understand bias. Here, an utterance such as ``All n*ggers deserve to die respectfully. The police murder us.'' it reaches a higher toxicity than ``African-Americans deserve to die respectfully. The police murder us.''. This score difference likely arises because the tool cannot understand the re-appropriation of the term ``n*gger''. One explanation for this bias is that AI models are trained on limited datasets, and using such a term in training data is more likely to appear in a toxic utterance. While this may be plausible, the tool will make mistakes regardless. Here, we study bias on two Web-based (YouTube and Twitter) datasets and two spoken English datasets. Our analysis shows how most models present biases towards AAE in most settings. We isolate the impact of AAE expression usage via linguistic control features from the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software, grammatical control features extracted via Part-of-Speech (PoS) tagging from Natural Language Processing (NLP) models, and the semantic of utterances by comparing sentence embeddings from recent language models. We present consistent results on how a heavy usage of AAE expressions may cause the speaker to be considered substantially more toxic, even when speaking about nearly the same subject. Our study complements similar analyses focusing on small datasets and/or one method only.

Establishing evaluation schemes for spoken dialogue systems is important, but it can also be challenging. While subjective evaluations are commonly used in user experiments, objective evaluations are necessary for research comparison and reproducibility. To address this issue, we propose a framework for indirectly but objectively evaluating systems based on users' behaviors. In this paper, to this end, we investigate the relationship between user behaviors and subjective evaluation scores in social dialogue tasks: attentive listening, job interview, and first-meeting conversation. The results reveal that in dialogue tasks where user utterances are primary, such as attentive listening and job interview, indicators like the number of utterances and words play a significant role in evaluation. Observing disfluency also can indicate the effectiveness of formal tasks, such as job interview. On the other hand, in dialogue tasks with high interactivity, such as first-meeting conversation, behaviors related to turn-taking, like average switch pause length, become more important. These findings suggest that selecting appropriate user behaviors can provide valuable insights for objective evaluation in each social dialogue task.

We report results of a longitudinal sentiment classification of Reddit posts written by students of four major Canadian universities. We work with the texts of the posts, concentrating on the years 2020-2023. By finely tuning a sentiment threshold to a range of [-0.075,0.075], we successfully built classifiers proficient in categorizing post sentiments into positive and negative categories. Noticeably, our sentiment classification results are consistent across the four university data sets.

Rhetorical Structure Theory implies no single discourse interpretation of a text, and the limitations of RST parsers further exacerbate inconsistent parsing of similar structures. Therefore, it is important to take into account that the same argumentative structure can be found in semantically similar texts with varying rhetorical structures. In this work, the differences between paraphrases within the same argument scheme are evaluated from a rhetorical perspective. The study proposes a deep dependency parsing model to assess the connection between rhetorical and argument structures. The model utilizes rhetorical relations; RST structures of paraphrases serve as training data augmentations. The method allows for end-to-end argumentation analysis using a rhetorical tree instead of a word sequence. It is evaluated on the bilingual Microtexts corpus, and the first results on fully-fledged argument parsing for the Russian version of the corpus are reported. The results suggest that argument mining can benefit from multiple variants of discourse structure.

Existing multimodal sentiment analysis tasks are highly rely on the assumption that the training and test sets are complete multimodal data, while this assumption can be difficult to hold: the multimodal data are often incomplete in real-world scenarios. Therefore, a robust multimodal model in scenarios with randomly missing modalities is highly preferred. Recently, CLIP-based multimodal foundational models have demonstrated impressive performance on numerous multimodal tasks by learning the aligned cross-modal semantics of image and text pairs, but the multimodal foundational models are also unable to directly address scenarios involving modality absence. To alleviate this issue, we propose a simple and effective framework, namely TRML, Toward Robust Multimodal Learning using Multimodal Foundational Models. TRML employs generated virtual modalities to replace missing modalities, and aligns the semantic spaces between the generated and missing modalities. Concretely, we design a missing modality inference module to generate virtual modaliites and replace missing modalities. We also design a semantic matching learning module to align semantic spaces generated and missing modalities. Under the prompt of complete modality, our model captures the semantics of missing modalities by leveraging the aligned cross-modal semantic space. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of our approach on three multimodal sentiment analysis benchmark datasets, CMU-MOSI, CMU-MOSEI, and MELD.

While colonization has sociohistorically impacted people's identities across various dimensions, those colonial values and biases continue to be perpetuated by sociotechnical systems. One category of sociotechnical systems--sentiment analysis tools--can also perpetuate colonial values and bias, yet less attention has been paid to how such tools may be complicit in perpetuating coloniality, although they are often used to guide various practices (e.g., content moderation). In this paper, we explore potential bias in sentiment analysis tools in the context of Bengali communities that have experienced and continue to experience the impacts of colonialism. Drawing on identity categories most impacted by colonialism amongst local Bengali communities, we focused our analytic attention on gender, religion, and nationality. We conducted an algorithmic audit of all sentiment analysis tools for Bengali, available on the Python package index (PyPI) and GitHub. Despite similar semantic content and structure, our analyses showed that in addition to inconsistencies in output from different tools, Bengali sentiment analysis tools exhibit bias between different identity categories and respond differently to different ways of identity expression. Connecting our findings with colonially shaped sociocultural structures of Bengali communities, we discuss the implications of downstream bias of sentiment analysis tools.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated superior abilities in tasks such as chatting, reasoning, and question-answering. However, standard LLMs may ignore crucial paralinguistic information, such as sentiment, emotion, and speaking style, which are essential for achieving natural, human-like spoken conversation, especially when such information is conveyed by acoustic cues. We therefore propose Paralinguistics-enhanced Generative Pretrained Transformer (ParalinGPT), an LLM that utilizes text and speech modalities to better model the linguistic content and paralinguistic attributes of spoken dialogue. The model takes the conversational context of text, speech embeddings, and paralinguistic attributes as input prompts within a serialized multitasking multimodal framework. Specifically, our framework serializes tasks in the order of current paralinguistic attribute prediction, response paralinguistic attribute prediction, and response text generation with autoregressive conditioning. We utilize the Switchboard-1 corpus, including its sentiment labels as the paralinguistic attribute, as our spoken dialogue dataset. Experimental results indicate the proposed serialized multitasking method outperforms typical sequence classification techniques on current and response sentiment classification. Furthermore, leveraging conversational context and speech embeddings significantly improves both response text generation and sentiment prediction. Our proposed framework achieves relative improvements of 6.7%, 12.0%, and 3.5% in current sentiment accuracy, response sentiment accuracy, and response text BLEU score, respectively.

Sentiment Analysis Systems (SASs) are data-driven Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that output polarity and emotional intensity when given a piece of text as input. Like other AIs, SASs are also known to have unstable behavior when subjected to changes in data which can make it problematic to trust out of concerns like bias when AI works with humans and data has protected attributes like gender, race, and age. Recently, an approach was introduced to assess SASs in a blackbox setting without training data or code, and rating them for bias using synthetic English data. We augment it by introducing two human-generated chatbot datasets and also consider a round-trip setting of translating the data from one language to the same through an intermediate language. We find that these settings show SASs performance in a more realistic light. Specifically, we find that rating SASs on the chatbot data showed more bias compared to the synthetic data, and round-tripping using Spanish and Danish as intermediate languages reduces the bias (up to 68% reduction) in human-generated data while, in synthetic data, it takes a surprising turn by increasing the bias! Our findings will help researchers and practitioners refine their SAS testing strategies and foster trust as SASs are considered part of more mission-critical applications for global use.