Emotion classification for short texts: an improved multi-label method
Open accessAbstract
The process of computationally identifying and categorizing opinions expressed in a piece of text is of great importance to support better understanding and services to online users in the digital environment. However, accurate and fast multi-label automatic classification is still insufficient. By considering not only individual in-sentence features but also the features in the adjacent sentences and the full text of the tweet, this study adjusted the Multi-label K-Nearest Neighbors (MLkNN) classifier to allow iterative corrections of the multi-label emotion classification. It applies the new method to improve both the accuracy and speed of emotion classification for short texts on Twitter. By carrying out three groups of experiments on the Twitter corpus, this study compares the performance of the base classifier of MLkNN, the sample-based MLkNN (S-MLkNN), and the label-based MLkNN (L-MLkNN). The results show that the improved MLkNN algorithm can effectively improve the accuracy of emotion classification of short texts, especially when the value of K in the MLkNN base classifier is 8, and the value of α is 0.7, and the improved L-MLkNN algorithm outperforms the other methods in the overall performance and the recall rate reaches 0.8019. This study attempts to obtain an efficient classifier with smaller training samples and lower training costs for sentiment analysis. It is suggested that future studies should pay more attention to balancing the efficiency of the model with smaller training sample sizes and the completeness of the model to cover various scenarios.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The quality and accuracy of the explanations produced by GPT may depend on the quality and accuracy of the training data, as well as the complexity and character of the black-box model being explained.
“Notably, the quality and accuracy of the explanations produced by GPT may depend on the quality and accuracy of the training data, as well as the complexity and character of the black-box model being explained [188,189].”
From Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (2024) · cites this paper as [189]
Cites
Sadr, H., Pedram, M. M., & Teshnehlab, M. (2019) · Neural Processing Letters · doi:10.1007/s11063-019-10049-1 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interpreting Black-Box Models: A Review on Explainable Artificial Intelligence
Hassija, V., Chamola, V., Mahapatra, A., Singal, A., Goel, D., Huang, K., Scardapane, S., Spinelli, I., Mahmud, M., & Hussain, A. (2024) · Cognitive Computation · doi:10.1007/s12559-023-10179-8 · Cited by 2,062 · see citing works
“Notably, the quality and accuracy of the explanations produced by GPT may depend on the quality and accuracy of the training data, as well as the complexity and character of the black-box model being explained [188, 189].”
BackgroundAn, H., Gu, X., Obrenovic, B., & Godinic, D. (2023) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s416100 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Dilber, C., & Yoşumaz, İ. (2026) · Journal of Academic Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10805-025-09681-5 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liu, X., Shi, T., Zhou, G., Liu, M., Yin, Z., Yin, L., & Zheng, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN)
- Wenzhou University of Technology (CN)
- Guizhou University (CN)
- Louisiana State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zheng, Wenfeng
- Venue
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- Published
- 2023-06-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2055-1045 (ISSN-L)
- 2662-9992
- OpenAlex
- W4379882795
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 100
- FWCI
- 16.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Keywords
- emotion classification, short text, Twitter, multi-label classification, sentiment analysis, training sample size
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review