Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 47 references

Farsi is de facto low-resource for subjective NLP despite its 127 million speakers, with only 15 public datasets and highly unstable LLM performance.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A survey and benchmark of Farsi subjective NLP finds few public datasets, missing demographic labels, and highly variable LLM performance across datasets.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A useful first survey and evaluation of Farsi subjective NLP, but the scarcity claim leans on a search method that could undercount datasets and the experiments lack variance reporting. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05719 v1 pith:KX4LECXK submitted 2025-09-06 cs.CL

Exploring Subjective Tasks in Farsi: A Survey Analysis and Evaluation of Language Models

Donya Rooein , Flor Miriam Plaza-del-Arco , Debora Nozza , Dirk Hovy This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords Farsi NLPsubjective taskssentiment analysisemotion analysistoxicity detectionlow-resource languagesdemographic metadataLLM evaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Farsi has more than 127 million speakers and a large Wikipedia presence, which usually earns it a "middle-resource" label in NLP. This paper argues that the label hides a deeper problem: for subjective tasks—emotion analysis, sentiment analysis, and toxicity detection—Farsi is effectively low-resource. Reviewing 110 publications, the authors find only 15 publicly available datasets, most lacking demographic metadata such as age and gender. In their benchmark, zero-shot LLMs perform poorly and unstably, especially on emotion, while a fine-tuned multilingual encoder model consistently outperforms them. The paper concludes that raw text volume is not enough to lift a language's prospects in subjective NLP.

Core claim

Resource status should be judged task by task, not by corpus size. Farsi's abundant web text and Wikipedia do not yield usable supervised data for emotion analysis, sentiment analysis, or toxicity detection. A structured review of 110 publications surfaces only 15 public datasets (7 EA, 5 SA, 3 TD), many from the same narrow sources (Twitter/Instagram and Digikala reviews); only two include demographic information, and few document annotator agreement. In evaluation, LLMs show highly unstable macro-averaged F1 scores: emotion near 0.2–0.4, sentiment 0.42–0.68, toxicity 0.56–0.94 depending on dataset and model. Fine-tuning XLM-RoBERTa improves every task, while translating Farsi to English gi

What carries the argument

The paper's argument runs through two instruments. First, a survey inventory that adapts a prior annotation framework to code each of 110 papers by task, dataset availability, source, size, labels, modality, and presence of demographic metadata. Second, a comparative benchmark: three open-source LLMs (Llama-3-8B, Mixtral-8x7B, Qwen2-7B) in zero-shot prompting with two templates, plus XLM-RoBERTa fine-tuned separately on each of nine datasets, with a Farsi-to-English translation condition. The macro-averaged F1 scores across this task-by-dataset-by-model matrix carry the instability claim, and the fine-tuning comparison carries the finding that fine-tuning consistently improves performance.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's completeness rests on restricting the search largely to ACL Anthology and the top 10 Google Scholar results per keyword; if many public Farsi subjective-task datasets sit outside those channels, the scarcity claim would be overstated, and the evaluation also assumes the nine selected datasets are representative of Farsi subjective tasks, a limitation the authors acknowledge.

What would settle it

Search beyond the top-10 Google Scholar results and outside ACL Anthology—local Iranian conferences, institutional repositories, and non-indexed venues—for public Farsi emotion, sentiment, or toxicity datasets; if those searches turn up many additional public datasets with demographic metadata, the scarcity claim weakens. Alternatively, rerun the benchmark on a broader stratified sample of Farsi texts and observe whether LLM F1 scores remain stable across datasets; stability would contradict the paper's 'highly unstable' claim.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Language-resource classifications should become task-specific: a language can be text-rich yet supervision-poor for subjective tasks.
  • Translation to English is not a reliable remedy for low-resource subjective NLP, since it did not consistently improve LLM scores.
  • Fine-tuned encoder-only models are a stronger default than zero-shot open LLMs on all three Farsi tasks in this study.
  • New Farsi subjective dataset creation should prioritize demographic metadata and annotator documentation, not just dataset size.
  • Evaluations of Farsi subjective NLP should report per-dataset results, because averages hide large swings across datasets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: LLM 'stability' claims for low-resource languages should be treated as dataset-specific until shown otherwise; model rankings from one Farsi dataset are unlikely to transfer.
  • Inference: The poor emotion-analysis results may stem partly from label-scheme mismatch, since the datasets do not align with standard emotion frameworks; cross-lingual emotion benchmarks may be hard to interpret even with more data.
  • Inference: The dominance of social-media and e-commerce sources suggests that datasets from other registers, such as news, literature, or spoken language, could shift both task difficulty and model rankings.
  • Inference: A testable extension would be to collect demographic-aware Farsi annotations and check whether age- and gender-conditioned evaluation reveals systematic bias that current datasets cannot expose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper surveys 110 publications on three subjective NLP tasks in Farsi (sentiment analysis, emotion analysis, toxicity detection), classifying them by dataset creation, public availability, annotation framework, modality, source, and demographic metadata. It reports 15 publicly available Farsi datasets across the three tasks and evaluates three open-source decoder-only LLMs (Llama-3-8B, Mixtral-8x7B, Qwen2-7B) in a zero-shot setting, together with fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa, on nine datasets, including an experiment on translating data to English and comparing two prompt templates. The main conclusions are that Farsi subjective NLP suffers from scarce public datasets and missing demographic/annotation documentation; that LLMs perform poorly and unstably across datasets and models, especially on emotion analysis; and that fine-tuning consistently improves performance.

Significance. If the survey inventory is reliable, the paper provides a useful and much-needed resource map for Farsi subjective NLP, identifying specific gaps in emotion analysis, toxicity detection, and demographic metadata. The experimental benchmark is a reasonable first comparison of open encoder and decoder models on these tasks, and the authors make the list of reviewed papers publicly available, which is a reproducibility asset. The paper also credibly shows that translation to English does not consistently help and that prompt variation has limited impact on emotion analysis. However, the central survey claim depends on a search completeness assumption that is not validated, and the experimental conclusions are not supported by statistical estimates of variability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] The paper's central claim of a 'lack of publicly available datasets' (Abstract) rests on a literature search restricted to ACL Anthology and the top-10 Google Scholar results per query via SerpApi. No snowballing from references, no recall check against existing Farsi surveys, and no queries to Persian-language repositories (e.g., SID, Magiran, Ensani) are reported. Because the count of 15 public datasets (Table 1) is the load-bearing evidence for the survey's main conclusion, the possibility of undercounting is a substantive correctness risk. Please add a validation/recall check against known Farsi surveys (e.g., Rajabi & Valavi 2021; Asgarnezhad & Monadjemi 2021; Borowczyk 2023), report coverage statistics, or soften the scarcity claim accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.2 / Table 4] Table 4 reports single macro-F1 values without error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The abstract's 'highly unstable across datasets and models' is a claim about variability, but the paper provides no variance estimates, no repeated runs, and no information about sampling temperature or seeds for the decoder-only models. It is therefore impossible to distinguish genuine model/dataset instability from evaluation noise. Please report repeated-run statistics, standard deviations, and ideally significance tests for the main comparisons (e.g., fine-tuned XLM-R vs. zero-shot LLMs).
  3. [Section 5.1 / Section 4.2.1] Prompt template selection was performed on subsamples of EmoPars and MirasOpinion, and the same datasets are then used again in the final evaluation reported in Table 4. If the prompt-selection subsamples were not disjoint from the final evaluation subsets, the reported advantage of template (II) may be inflated by test-set tuning. Please state whether the selection data were held out, or use a separate development set for prompt selection.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Table 1] Typographical issues: 'disguss' should be 'disgust'; the 'Farsi.Task' run-in is a formatting error; the EmoPars labels 'E - [disgust] + [hatred]' do not match the prose description that mentions 'wonder' (or surprise) instead of disgust. Please align the table with the dataset's actual label set.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'Only authors of three datasets (Yazdani and Shekofteh, 2022) provide detailed documentation...' is grammatically garbled and does not identify which three datasets are meant. Please rewrite and name the datasets.
  3. [Throughout] Inconsistent terminology: 'Mixtral-7B' vs. 'Mixtral-8x7B', 'SentiPars' vs. 'SentiPers', and 'NLBB' should be 'NLLB' (No Language Left Behind). Please standardize.
  4. [Appendix B.3] The heading 'Model hyperparameters' has no content under it; the hyperparameters appear in prose later. Either move the prose under the heading or remove the empty heading.
  5. [References] Llama 3 is cited twice as 'Dubey et al., 2024' and 'Grattafiori et al., 2024' with the same title and same arXiv identifier (arXiv:2407.21783). These appear to be duplicate references; please merge.
  6. [Table 3] The header 'T emplate A vg. F1 (I) (II)' is confusing. It should clearly indicate separate columns for Template (I) and Template (II) F1 scores.
  7. [Section 6] The conclusion 'fine-tuning consistently improves performance across all tasks' is supported only at the task-average level in Table 4; on Pars-OFF, Qwen2-7B (0.925) exceeds XLM-RoBERTa (0.854). Please qualify the claim.
  8. [Section 7] The Limitations section acknowledges biases in evaluation datasets but does not mention the survey search's reliance on top-10 Google Scholar results or the absence of Persian-language database queries. This is an important limitation of the main survey claim and should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the survey and experiments are empirical, self-contained observations with no derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical survey and evaluation, not a derivation, and I find no step in which an output is equivalent to an input by construction. The dataset inventory (15 public datasets, Section 3.2) is compiled from ACL Anthology and Google Scholar/SerpApi searches; the claim of scarcity is an inductive summary of that inventory, not an assumption whose truth is presupposed. The only direct self-citation is the adoption of the annotation framework of Plaza-del Arco et al. (2024) in Section 3.1; that framework supplies generic metadata categories (annotation framework, language, modality, source, size) and is not used to define the paper's conclusions, so it is not load-bearing. Prompt template (II) is chosen after comparing two templates on a subsample (Section 5.1) and then used in Section 5.2; this is tuning on the same data, which could be a methodological limitation, but the reported F1 scores are observations, not predictions forced by the choice, and the instability claim does not reduce to the prompt selection. The NLBB translation choice is a manual model selection (Section 4.2.2), not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The limitation acknowledged in Section 7 (reliance on existing public datasets) concerns coverage and generalizability, not circularity. The only serious risk is survey completeness due to the top-10 SerpApi cap, which is a correctness/coverage concern outside the circularity definition. Score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is empirical and introduces no fitted constants. Its assumptions are about search coverage, dataset representativeness, and evaluation protocol. The only free design choice reported as a selection is the prompt template.

free parameters (1)
  • Prompt template selection = Template II
    Selected after evaluating two templates on subsamples of EmoPars and MirasOpinion; this choice is tuned on the evaluation data and could inflate reported F1 scores.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption ACL Anthology plus top-10 Google Scholar results per query is a complete or representative sample of Farsi subjective-task research.
    Underlies the survey's conclusion that only 15 public datasets exist. Section 3 describes the search limitation.
  • domain assumption The nine datasets selected for evaluation are representative of Farsi subjective tasks.
    Generalizes the benchmark results; authors acknowledge this is a limitation in Section 7.
  • domain assumption Manual annotation of the 110 reviewed papers using the extended framework is reliable and consistent.
    Survey counts depend on this annotation (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Zero-shot prompting with a single template is a fair measure of LLM capability for these tasks.
    All LLM results use one prompt template (II) chosen after a small pilot; Section 4.2.1.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring Subjective Tasks in Farsi: A Survey Analysis and Evaluation of Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KX4LECXK

@misc{pith2026250905719,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring Subjective Tasks in Farsi: A Survey Analysis and Evaluation of Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KX4LECXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05719}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Given Farsi's speaker base of over 127 million people and the growing availability of digital text, including more than 1.3 million articles on Wikipedia, it is considered a middle-resource language. However, this label quickly crumbles when the situation is examined more closely. We focus on three subjective tasks (Sentiment Analysis, Emotion Analysis, and Toxicity Detection) and find significant challenges in data availability and quality, despite the overall increase in data availability. We review 110 publications on subjective tasks in Farsi and observe a lack of publicly available datasets. Furthermore, existing datasets often lack essential demographic factors, such as age and gender, that are crucial for accurately modeling subjectivity in language. When evaluating prediction models using the few available datasets, the results are highly unstable across both datasets and models. Our findings indicate that the volume of data is insufficient to significantly improve a language's prospects in NLP.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05719 by Debora Nozza, Dirk Hovy, Donya Rooein, Flor Miriam Plaza-del-Arco.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Distribution of papers considered in our survey by year and tasks (EA: Emotion Analysis, SA: Sentiment Analysis, and TD: Toxicity Detection). TD11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    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 INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Amirhossein Abaskohi, Sara Baruni, Mostafa Masoudi, Nesa Abbasi, Mohammad Hadi Babalou, Ali Edalat, Sepehr Kamahi, Samin Mahdizadeh Sani, Nikoo Naghavian, Danial Namazifard, Pouya Sadeghi, and Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.197/ Benchmarking large language models for P ersian: A preliminary study focusing on C hat GPT...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Abdullah Al Maruf, Fahima Khanam, Md Mahmudul Haque, Zakaria Masud Jiyad, Muhammad Firoz Mridha, and Zeyar Aung. 2024. Challenges and opportunities of text-based emotion detection: a survey. IEEE access, 12:18416--18450

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cecilia Ovesdotter Alm, Dan Roth, and Richard Sproat. 2005. https://aclanthology.org/H05-1073/ Emotions from text: Machine learning for text-based emotion prediction . In Proceedings of Human Language Technology Conference and Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 579--586, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Association f...

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Razieh Asgarnezhad and S Amirhassan Monadjemi. 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357510697_JAISIS_Volume_2_Issue_2_Pages_1-21pdf Persian sentiment analysis: feature engineering, datasets, and challenges . Journal of applied intelligent systems & information sciences, 2(2):1--21

    work page arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Taha Shangipour Ataei, Kamyar Darvishi, Soroush Javdan, Amin Pourdabiri, Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2022.3219229 Pars-off: A benchmark for offensive language detection on farsi social media . IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 14(4):2787--2795

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Christina Barz, Melanie Siegel, Daniel Hanss, and Michael Wiegand. 2025. Understanding disagreement: An annotation study of sentiment and emotional language in environmental communication. In Proceedings of the 19th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (LAW-XIX-2025), pages 1--20

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Magdalena Borowczyk. 2023. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9783110619225-001 1 Research in Persian Natural Language Processing – History and State of the Art , pages 1--24. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, Boston

    work page doi:10.1515/9783110619225-001 2023

  10. [10]

    Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzm \'a n, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Comp...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 2020

  11. [11]

    Marta R Costa-Juss \`a , James Cross, Onur C elebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, et al. 2022. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.04672 No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation . arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04672

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Hadi Davardoust, Hadi Zare, and Hossein RafieeZade. 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386905191_The_Dark_Side_of_Instagram_A_Large_Dataset_for_Identifying_Persian_Harmful_Comments The dark side of instagram: A large dataset for identifying persian harmful comments . SoCal NLP Symposium 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Zahra Delbari, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29743 Spanning the spectrum of hatred detection: A persian multi-label hate speech dataset with annotator rationales . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(16):17889--17897

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29743 2024

  14. [15]

    Paul Ekman, Tim Dalgleish, and M Power. 1999. Basic emotions. San Francisco, USA

    work page 1999

  15. [16]

    Sina Elahimanesh, Shayan Salehi, Sara Zahedi Movahed, Lisa Alazraki, Ruoyu Hu, and Abbas Edalat. 2023. From words and exercises to wellness: Farsi chatbot for self-attachment technique. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09362

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    Julen Etxaniz, Gorka Azkune, Aitor Soroa, Oier Lopez de Lacalle, and Mikel Artetxe. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-short.46 Do multilingual language models think better in E nglish? In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Shor...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-short.46 2024

  17. [18]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Pedram Hosseini, Ali Ahmadian Ramaki, Hassan Maleki, Mansoureh Anvari, and Seyed Abolghasem Mirroshandel. 2018. Sentipers: a sentiment analysis corpus for persian. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07737

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [20]

    Lai Po Hung and Suraya Alias. 2023. Beyond sentiment analysis: A review of recent trends in text based sentiment analysis and emotion detection. Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, 27(1):84--95

    work page 2023

  20. [21]

    Mohammad Ali Hussiny and Lilja vrelid. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.wassa-1.24 Emotion analysis of tweets banning education in A fghanistan . In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis , pages 271--277, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.wassa-1.24 2023

  21. [22]

    Mohammad Ali Hussiny, Mohammad Arif Payenda, and Lilja vrelid. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.sigul-1.31/ P ersian E mo: Enhancing F arsi- D ari emotion analysis with a hybrid transformer and recurrent neural network model . In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Under-resourced Languages @ LREC-COLING 2024, pages 2...

    work page 2024

  22. [23]

    Sara Izadi, Javad Sadri, Farshid Solimanpour, and Ching Y Suen. 2006. A review on persian script and recognition techniques. Summit on Arabic and Chinese Handwriting Recognition, pages 22--35

    work page 2006

  23. [24]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, et al. 2024. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [25]

    Pratik Joshi, Sebastin Santy, Amar Budhiraja, Kalika Bali, and Monojit Choudhury. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.560 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 Computational...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.560 2020

  25. [26]

    Mahboobeh Sadat Kobari, Nima Karimi, Benyamin Pourhosseini, and Ramin Mousa. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.17068 weighted capsulenet networks for persian multi-domain sentiment analysis . arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17068

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [27]

    Sheetal Kusal, Shruti Patil, Jyoti Choudrie, Ketan Kotecha, Deepali Vora, and Ilias Pappas. 2022. A review on text-based emotion detection--techniques, applications, datasets, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03235

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [28]

    Hossein Mirzaee, Javad Peymanfard, Hamid Habibzadeh Moshtaghin, and Hossein Zeinali. 2022. Armanemo: A persian dataset for text-based emotion detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.11808

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [29]

    Ashritha R Murthy and KM Anil Kumar. 2021. A review of different approaches for detecting emotion from text. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, volume 1110, page 012009. IOP Publishing

    work page 2021

  29. [30]

    Pansy Nandwani and Rupali Verma. 2021. A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text. Social network analysis and mining, 11(1):81

    work page 2021

  30. [31]

    Siru Ouyang, Shuohang Wang, Yang Liu, Ming Zhong, Yizhu Jiao, Dan Iter, Reid Pryzant, Chenguang Zhu, Heng Ji, and Jiawei Han. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.146 The shifted and the overlooked: A task-oriented investigation of user- GPT interactions . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.146 2023

  31. [32]

    John Pavlopoulos, Jeffrey Sorensen, Lucas Dixon, Nithum Thain, and Ion Androutsopoulos. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.396 Toxicity detection: Does context really matter? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4296--4305, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.396 2020

  32. [33]

    Cercas Curry, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Dirk Hovy

    Flor Miriam Plaza-del Arco, Alba A. Cercas Curry, Amanda Cercas Curry, and Dirk Hovy. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.506/ Emotion analysis in NLP : Trends, gaps and roadmap for future directions . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pag...

    work page 2024

  33. [34]

    Robert Plutchik. 1982. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901882021004003 A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions . Social Science Information, 21(4-5):529--553

    doi:10.1177/053901882021004003 1982

  34. [35]

    Zeinab Rajabi and MohammadReza Valavi. 2021. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12559-021-09886-x A survey on sentiment analysis in persian: a comprehensive system perspective covering challenges and advances in resources and methods . Cognitive Computation, 13(4):882--902

    work page doi:10.1007/s12559-021-09886-x 2021

  35. [36]

    Nazanin Sabri, Reyhane Akhavan, and Behnam Bahrak. 2021 a . https://aclanthology.org/2021.ranlp-srw.23/ E mo P ars: A collection of 30 K emotion-annotated P ersian social media texts . In Proceedings of the Student Research Workshop Associated with RANLP 2021, pages 167--173, Online. INCOMA Ltd

    work page 2021

  36. [37]

    Nazanin Sabri, Ali Edalat, and Behnam Bahrak. 2021 b . Sentiment analysis of persian-english code-mixed texts. In 2021 26th International Computer Conference, Computer Society of Iran (CSICC), pages 1--4. IEEE

    work page 2021

  37. [38]

    Seyedeh S Sadeghi, Hasan Khotanlou, and M Rasekh Mahand. 2021. Automatic persian text emotion detection using cognitive linguistic and deep learning. Journal of AI and Data Mining, 9(2):169--179

    work page 2021

  38. [39]

    Abel Salinas and Fred Morstatter. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.275 The butterfly effect of altering prompts: How small changes and jailbreaks affect large language model performance . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 4629--4651, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.275 2024

  39. [40]

    Taha Shangipour ataei, Kamyar Darvishi, Soroush Javdan, Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli, and Sauleh Eetemadi. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.lrec-1.763/ Pars- ABSA : a manually annotated aspect-based sentiment analysis benchmark on F arsi product reviews . In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 7056--7060, Marseil...

    work page 2022

  40. [41]

    Pragya Singh Tomar , Kirti Mathur, and Ugrasen Suman. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2022.10.012 Unimodal approaches for emotion recognition: A systematic review . Cognitive Systems Research, 77:94--109

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2022.10.012 2023

  41. [42]

    Jie Tao and Xing Fang. 2020. https://journalofbigdata.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40537-019-0278-0#citeas Toward multi-label sentiment analysis: a transfer learning based approach . Journal of Big Data, 7(1):1

    work page doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0278-0 2020

  42. [43]

    Pranav Venkit, Mukund Srinath, Sanjana Gautam, Saranya Venkatraman, Vipul Gupta, Rebecca Passonneau, and Shomir Wilson. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.848 The sentiment problem: A critical survey towards deconstructing sentiment analysis . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.848 2023

  43. [44]

    Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of human language technology conference and conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 347--354

    work page 2005

  44. [45]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R \'e mi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [46]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. 2024. Qwen2. 5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    Ali Yazdani and Yasser Shekofteh. 2022. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.09956 A persian asr-based ser: modification of sharif emotional speech database and investigation of persian text corpora . arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09956

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [48]

    Ali Yazdani, Hossein Simchi, and Yasser Shekofteh. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCKE54056.2021.9721504 Emotion recognition in persian speech using deep neural networks . In 2021 11th International Conference on Computer Engineering and Knowledge (ICCKE), pages 374--378

    arXiv 2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.