Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Investigating the Impact of Language-Adaptive Fine-Tuning on Sentiment Analysis in Hausa Language Using AfriBERTa

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that language-adaptive fine-tuning on formal Hausa text leaves test sentiment scores unchanged at 75 percent, while AfriBERTa's prior Hausa pre-training drives the real gains.

desk verdict The new Hausa corpus is real, but the paper's headline claim of LAFT improvements is contradicted by its own test-set table; the result is a null result, and the abstract needs to say so. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11023 v1 pith:EJVCLKA3 submitted 2025-01-19 cs.CL

Sani Abdullahi Sani , Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad , Devon Jarvis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords Hausasentimentanalysislow-resourcelanguageslanguage-adaptivefine-tuningLAFTAfriBERTaNaijaSentidomainmismatch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether an extra self-supervised training step on unlabeled Hausa text, called language-adaptive fine-tuning (LAFT), before supervised fine-tuning improves sentiment classification of Hausa tweets using the AfriBERTa model. The authors curate a corpus of roughly 44,000 formal Hausa sentences from blogs, novels, and scanned literature, apply LAFT, and then fine-tune on the NaijaSenti Twitter sentiment benchmark. The reported result is that test accuracy and F1 stay at 75% before and after LAFT, while validation F1 edges from 77% to 78%, within the stated ±0.01 variation. The paper concludes that LAFT gives modest improvements and attributes the small gain to a domain mismatch: formal corpus text versus informal social media language. This matters because clarifying when continued pretraining helps and when it does not guides how to spend scarce data resources for low-resource African languages.

What carries the argument

The central object is language-adaptive fine-tuning (LAFT), defined in this paper as an intermediate continued-pretraining step in which the model is trained with the masked-language-modeling objective on a large unlabeled corpus of the target language before being fine-tuned on the downstream task. The pipeline proceeds in two phases: start from AfriBERTa Small, a roughly 97-million-parameter Transformer pre-trained on 11 African languages including Hausa; run LAFT for five epochs on about 44,000 formal Hausa sentences aggregated from a blogging platform, a Hausa novel store, and OCR-extracted scanned literature; then fine-tune for three epochs on the NaijaSenti Hausa Twitter sentiment dataset, keeping hyperparameters identical to the baseline. Attention maps are used to illustrate that the model focuses on sentiment-bearing phrases such as 'Allah ya isa' for negative sentiment and 'farin ciki' for positive sentiment. The LAFT step is the independent variable the paper tests, and the register of its corpus is the explanatory factor the paper invokes for the modest outcome.

What would settle it

A direct way to settle the paper's central explanation is to rerun the identical two-phase pipeline with the LAFT corpus replaced by a comparable-size collection of unlabeled Hausa tweets from the same platform as NaijaSenti. If test accuracy and F1 on NaijaSenti remain at 75%, the domain-mismatch story is wrong; if they improve, the story is supported. A cheaper check is to recover the per-run scores behind Table 4 and test whether the validation F1 change from 77% to 78% is statistically significant rather than noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that language-adaptive fine-tuning provides modest improvements for Hausa sentiment analysis, with the size of the gain limited by the genre gap between the unlabeled corpus and the target task. Concretely, after running LAFT on the curated formal Hausa corpus and then fine-tuning on NaijaSenti, validation F1 rises from 77% to 78% while test accuracy and F1 remain unchanged at 75%, all within a reported run-to-run variation of ±0.01. The paper interprets the unchanged test metrics as evidence that the formality of the fine-tuning corpus, rather than a failure of the LAFT mechanism, is what caps the gains. It also reports that AfriBERTa, because it was pre-trained on Hausa, substantially outperforms models without that prior exposure, underscoring the value of language-inclusive pre-training for low-resource sentiment analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that continued pretraining on curated formal Hausa text transfers to the informal conversational language of Twitter; the paper's own test metrics indicate this transfer largely does not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the domain-mismatch explanation is right, LAFT's benefit for low-resource sentiment analysis hinges on matching the unlabeled corpus to the register of the downstream data, not on corpus size alone.
  • AfriBERTa's prior Hausa pre-training is the main driver of downstream performance, so adding LAFT to a model that already includes the target language may produce little or no test-set gain.
  • The released curated Hausa corpus and the two-phase recipe give other researchers a directly reproducible baseline for Hausa sentiment work.
  • Validation-only improvements that fall within reported run-to-run variation should be interpreted cautiously when deciding whether an intermediate pretraining step is worth its compute.
  • For compute-constrained settings, AfriBERTa Small matches far larger models on the NaijaSenti Hausa task, making small language-specific PLMs a practical choice.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A stricter reading of the numbers is that the LAFT step produced no measurable benefit on the test partition; the paper's 'modest improvements' framing rests on validation statistics that are within the reported ±0.01 noise.
  • An obvious experiment the paper did not run is to replace the formal LAFT corpus with an equal-size corpus of unlabeled Hausa tweets; if test F1 rises, the domain-mismatch diagnosis is confirmed, and if it does not, the diagnosis is falsified.
  • The result generalizes a broader point about continued pretraining: genre and style match between the auxiliary corpus and the downstream task can matter more than raw token volume for low-resource languages.
  • The attention-map evidence is anecdotal, drawn from hand-picked sentences; a quantitative check of whether attention aligns with sentiment-bearing tokens across a random sample would test the interpretability claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether language-adaptive fine-tuning (LAFT) improves sentiment analysis for the low-resource Hausa language. The authors curate an unlabeled Hausa corpus of roughly 40,000 sentences from blogs, novels, and scanned literature, apply LAFT to AfriBERTa small, and then fine-tune both the LAFT-adapted and baseline models on the NaijaSenti Hausa sentiment dataset. They report accuracy, F1, precision, and recall averaged over three runs, comparing the model with and without the LAFT step. The abstract claims that LAFT gives modest improvements, attributed to the formal nature of the collected corpus, and the paper also compares its final model to several published results on NaijaSenti. Code and data are released for reproducibility.

Significance. If the claimed LAFT improvement were real, the paper would be a useful contribution to low-resource African language sentiment analysis, and the curated Hausa corpus is a potentially valuable resource. The authors should be credited for releasing code and data and for comparing against prior work. However, the headline contribution is not supported by the reported test-set metrics: the test results are identical before and after LAFT. The paper's own conclusion concedes that LAFT did not significantly exceed the baseline, so the positive framing in the abstract and contributions is internally inconsistent. The significance of the work hinges on correctly presenting this as a null result and positioning the corpus release as the main contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 4, and Abstract] The abstract's claim that 'LAFT gives modest improvements' is contradicted by Table 4, where test accuracy and F1 are identical (75.00% ± 0.01) before and after LAFT, and test precision and recall are also unchanged (76% and 75%). The only increases are on training and validation metrics, each by one percentage point (77% to 78%), which equals the reported ±0.01 run-to-run variation. With only three averaged runs, this shift is within the noise band and does not establish an effect on the held-out test distribution. The paper's own Section 6 states that LAFT 'did not significantly exceed the baseline,' which directly conflicts with the positive wording of the abstract and contribution 2.
  2. [§3.8 and §4] The learning rate and epoch counts were selected based on observed validation loss and validation performance, as stated in §3.8 ('Observations of early overfitting... prompted a reduction to 1 × 10−5' and 'we determined through experimentation that 5 epochs were optimal'). Consequently, the validation metrics in Table 4 are not an unbiased estimate of generalization; the held-out test set is the only reliable evidence. The paper's use of the validation F1 increase from 77% to 78% as evidence of improvement is thus doubly problematic: it is a within-noise change on a split that was already used to choose hyperparameters.
  3. [§7 and §6] The Limitations section (Section 7) acknowledges that the formal-text corpus likely limited improvement, and the Conclusion (Section 6) states that LAFT did not significantly exceed the baseline. These admissions should be given full weight: the appropriate interpretation of Table 4 is that LAFT had no measurable effect on test performance. The domain-mismatch explanation is plausible but speculative and cannot be validated with the current data because the test metrics are unchanged. The paper should either explicitly report a null result or provide additional experiments, such as LAFT on informal social media text, to support the proposed explanation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 4] The formatting of values such as '77.00 ±0.01' is inconsistent (missing space before the plus-minus), and reporting a single standard deviation value for all metrics without the actual measured standard deviation across runs makes it impossible to verify whether the one-point shift is significant.
  2. [Abstract and §5] The comparison to prior work (Isa 2024, Kumshe 2024) does not state whether those systems used the same NaijaSenti train/validation/test splits; without this information, the claim that the proposed model 'outperforms' them is not strictly established.
  3. [§9, Ethical Considerations] The ethical considerations section has minor formatting issues, including inconsistent capitalization ('we are committed' after a period) and an incomplete sentence in item 4; also, the data curation statement would benefit from clarifying whether the incentive to Hausa Global Media was monetary and how its size was determined.
  4. [Throughout] The link labeled 'SA for LowRes Language' appears in the abstract and acknowledgments but is not provided as a full URL in the text, making it hard for readers to locate the repository directly from the PDF.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the LAFT effect is an empirical before/after comparison, and the same-group citations are not load-bearing; the abstract's 'modest improvements' is undercut by unchanged test metrics, but that is an evidence problem, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is empirical: the same AfriBERTa-small model and same NaijaSenti fine-tuning pipeline are run with and without an intermediate LAFT phase (Sections 3.1 and 3.8). No equation defines the post-LAFT metrics in terms of the pre-LAFT metrics, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness or structural result is imported from the authors' prior work. The only self-citations are to the NaijaSenti dataset and related AfriSenti work (Muhammad et al., 2022, 2023); these supply the benchmark and literature context, not the evidence for the LAFT effect, so they are not load-bearing. One Related Work sentence cites Muhammad et al. (2022) for LAFT effectiveness, which appears to be a citation imprecision rather than a circular dependency. The abstract's claim that 'LAFT gives modest improvements' is not supported by Table 4 on the held-out test split: test accuracy, F1, precision, and recall are identical before and after LAFT (75/75/76/75), and the only reported gains are training/validation metrics rising by one point (77 to 78), equal to the stated ±0.01 variation. Section 6 concedes LAFT 'did not significantly exceed the baseline,' and Section 7 attributes the null result to the formal-versus-informal domain mismatch. These are correctness and consistency weaknesses—the headline overstates a null result—not circularity, because the claimed improvement does not reduce by construction to any input of the experiment. The paper is therefore self-contained on the circularity axis; score 2 reflects only the presence of minor same-group citations, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities or mechanisms. The free parameters are standard training hyperparameters and a split ratio. The axioms are assumptions about data quality, domain transfer, split validity, and model initialization.

free parameters (3)
  • Learning rate = 1e-5
    Initially set to 2e-5, reduced to 1e-5 after observing overfitting in validation loss (Section 3.8). Affects all reported results.
  • Number of epochs = 5 for LAFT, 3 for SA
    Selected by experimentation based on validation metrics (Section 3.8). The LAFT phase uses 5 epochs, the downstream SA task uses 3.
  • Train/validation/test split ratio = 70:10:20
    Chosen by the authors for both datasets (Section 3.5); no justification or stratification is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The NaijaSenti Hausa labels are correct and consistent.
    The downstream evaluation relies on the quality of the NaijaSenti annotation, which is taken from prior work without auditing label noise.
  • domain assumption Continued pretraining on unlabeled Hausa text transfers to the downstream Twitter sentiment task.
    This is the core premise of LAFT. The paper's own Limitations (Section 7) state that the formal text domain may not transfer, and the null test result supports that concern.
  • domain assumption The 70:10:20 random split yields i.i.d. partitions for both datasets.
    No stratification or source-based splitting is described, so the split assumes each partition is representative of the whole.
  • domain assumption AfriBERTa's pretraining on Hausa provides a beneficial initialization.
    The paper's baseline comparison assumes this. It is supported by prior work (e.g., Ogueji et al., 2021) but is still a premise of the experimental design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Impact of Language-Adaptive Fine-Tuning on Sentiment Analysis in Hausa Language Using AfriBERTa." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJVCLKA3

@misc{pith2026250111023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Impact of Language-Adaptive Fine-Tuning on Sentiment Analysis in Hausa Language Using AfriBERTa},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJVCLKA3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11023}
}
read the original abstract

Sentiment analysis (SA) plays a vital role in Natural Language Processing (NLP) by ~identifying sentiments expressed in text. Although significant advances have been made in SA for widely spoken languages, low-resource languages such as Hausa face unique challenges, primarily due to a lack of digital resources. This study investigates the effectiveness of Language-Adaptive Fine-Tuning (LAFT) to improve SA performance in Hausa. We first curate a diverse, unlabeled corpus to expand the model's linguistic capabilities, followed by applying LAFT to adapt AfriBERTa specifically to the nuances of the Hausa language. The adapted model is then fine-tuned on the labeled NaijaSenti sentiment dataset to evaluate its performance. Our findings demonstrate that LAFT gives modest improvements, which may be attributed to the use of formal Hausa text rather than informal social media data. Nevertheless, the pre-trained AfriBERTa model significantly outperformed models not specifically trained on Hausa, highlighting the importance of using pre-trained models in low-resource contexts. This research emphasizes the necessity for diverse data sources to advance NLP applications for low-resource African languages. We published the code and the dataset to encourage further research and facilitate reproducibility in low-resource NLP here: https://github.com/Sani-Abdullahi-Sani/Natural-Language-Processing/blob/main/Sentiment%20Analysis%20for%20Low%20Resource%20African%20Languages

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11023 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental Overview: Assessing the Impact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Confusion Matrix for Downstream Task before LAFT (Baseline Model on the left), and after LAFT (on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LAFT Training and Validation Loss curve across five epochs showing a consistent reduction, indi￾cating effective learning. However, by the fifth epoch, the validation loss begins to rise slightly, suggesting a potential sign of overfitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training and Validation Loss for the Downstream Task before and after LAFT. The graph indicate that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Attention Map Highlighting Key Phrases in Sentiment Analysis with strong focus on ’Allah ya isa’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Spread of the hausa language 2005

    2024. Spread of the hausa language 2005. https://worldmapper.org/maps/spread-of-the-hausa-language-2005/. Accessed: 2024-10-13

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ife Adebara, AbdelRahim Elmadany, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, and Alcides Alcoba Inciarte. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.97 SERENGETI : Massively multilingual language models for A frica . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1498--1537, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.97 2023

  3. [3]

    Alabi, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Marius Mosbach, and Dietrich Klakow

    Jesujoba O. Alabi, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Marius Mosbach, and Dietrich Klakow. 2022. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85165754971&partnerID=40&md5=e53c6247299fdb9fe95c4ae40124ee9c Adapting pre-trained language models to african languages via multilingual adaptive fine-tuning . volume 29, page 4336 – 4349. Cited by: 65

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Rehema Baguma, Hajarah Namuwaya, Joyce Nakatumba-Nabende, and Qazi Mamunur Rashid. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56396-6_1 Examining potential harms of large language models (llms) in africa . Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, LNICST, 566 LNICST:3 – 19. Cited by: 0

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-56396-6_1 2024

  5. [5]

    Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85117951188&partnerID=40&md5=9de413c45a8bd91ff3b421c10f2ef5a9 Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale . page ...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85083815650&partnerID=40&md5=4986c6d6076c0c91df84d17216b47216 Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . volume 1, page 4171 – 4186. Cited by: 37742

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Eberhard, Gary F

    David M. Eberhard, Gary F. Simons, and Charles D. Fennig. 2024. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, twenty-seventh edition. SIL International, Dallas, Texas. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Mubarak Daha Isa. 2024. Fine-tuned gemma 7b for hausa sentiment analysis. https://huggingface.co/your-username/fine-tuned-gemma-7b-hausa

    work page 2024

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Joshi, S

    P. Joshi, S. Santy, A. Budhiraja, K. Bali, and M. Choudhury. 2020. The state and fate of linguistic diversity and inclusion in the nlp world. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6282--6293, Online. Association for C...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.06226 Sentencepiece: A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for neural text processing . CoRR, abs/1808.06226

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Umar Muhammad Mustapha Kumshe. 2024. Hausa sentiment analysis. https://huggingface.co/Kumshe/Hausa-sentiment-analysis

    2024

  4. [12]

    Vidhu Mathur, Tanvi Dadu, and Swati Aggarwal. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135440 Evaluating neural networks’ ability to generalize against adversarial attacks in cross-lingual settings . Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 14(13)

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    Naira Abdou Mohamed, Imade Benelallam, Anass Allak, and Kamel Gaanoun. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-46849-0_23 A review on nlp approaches for african languages and dialects . Advances in Science, Technology and Innovation, page 207 – 213. Cited by: 0

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Mohammad, Meriem Beloucif, and Sebastian Ruder

    Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Idris Abdulmumin, Seid Muhie Yimam, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Ibrahim Said Ahmad, Nedjma Ousidhoum, Abinew Ali Ayele, Saif M. Mohammad, Meriem Beloucif, and Sebastian Ruder. 2023. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85162790834&partne...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Sebastian Ruder, Ibrahim Said Ahmad, Idris Abdulmumin, Bello Shehu Bello, Monojit Choudhury, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Saheed Salahudeen Abdullahi, Anuoluwapo Aremu, Alipio Jeorge, and Pavel Brazdil. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs...

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nasim and S

    Z. Nasim and S. Ghani. 2020. Sentiment analysis on urdu tweets using markov chains. SN Computer Science, 1(5):1--13

    2020

  9. [17]

    Antoine Nzeyimana. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.98 Kinlp at semeval-2023 task 12: Kinyarwanda tweet sentiment analysis . page 718 – 723. Cited by: 2; All Open Access, Hybrid Gold Open Access

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Kelechi Ogueji, Yuxin Zhu, and Jimmy Lin. 2021. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85123335828&partnerID=40&md5=c19e80f9ef587640a938b45cf4189afe Small data? no problem! exploring the viability of pretrained multilingual language models for low-resource languag...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Pang and L

    B. Pang and L. Lee. 2007. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2:1--135

    2007

  12. [20]

    Pfeiffer, I

    J. Pfeiffer, I. Vuli, I. Gurevych, and S. Ruder. 2020. Mad-x: An adapter-based framework for multi-task cross-lingual transfer. In Proceedings of EMNLP 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Nilanjana Raychawdhary, Amit Das, Gerry Dozier, and Cheryl D. Seals. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.208 S eals \_ L ab at S em E val-2023 task 12: Sentiment analysis for low-resource A frican languages, H ausa and I gbo . In Proceedings of the 17th Internatio...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Egil Rønningstad. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.144 Uio at semeval-2023 task 12: Multilingual fine-tuning for sentiment classification in low-resource languages . page 1054 – 1060. Cited by: 2; All Open Access, Hybrid Gold Open Access

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Mingyang Wang, Heike Adel, Lukas Lange, Jannik Strötgen, and Hinrich Schütze. 2023. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85161047839&partnerID=40&md5=81a4bcf1c86b2fa6b4770bcd7a17f6e6 Nlnde at semeval-2023 task 12: Adaptive pretraining and source language selecti...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R \' e mi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03771 Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processin...

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ekkehard Wolff

    H. Ekkehard Wolff. 2024. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hausa-language Hausa language . Accessed: 2024-10-13

    2024

  18. [26]

    S. M. Yimam, H. M. Alemayehu, A. Ayele, and C. Biemann. 2020. Exploring amharic sentiment analysis from social media texts: Building annotation tools and classification models. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 1048--1060

    2020

  19. [27]

    Aliyu Yusuf, Aliza Sarlan, Kamaluddeen Usman Danyaro, and Abdullahi Sani B A Rahman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITA58204.2023.10262742 Fine-tuning multilingual transformers for hausa-english sentiment analysis . page 13 – 18

    2023

  20. [28]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  21. [29]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.