4.5 Article

A comparative analysis of transformer based models for figurative language classification

Journal

COMPUTERS & ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 101, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.108051

Keywords

Figurative language; Sentiment analysis; Sarcasm Natural language processing; Long Short Term Memory (LSTM); Transformers Architecture Fine tuning; Hyperbole Rhetorical questions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores several models based on the Transformer architecture and analyzes their performance, with a focus on the adaptability of Transformers for figurative language classification. The results highlight the importance of computers understanding figurative language and the current challenges and research progress in this field.
Efficient and effective methods are required to construct a model to rapidly extractdifferent sentiments from large volumes of text. To augment the performance of the models, contemporary developments in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been utilized by researchers to work on several model architecture and pretraining tasks. This work explores several models based on transformer architecture and analyses its performance. In this work, the researchersusea dataset to answer the question of whether or not transformers work significantly well for figurative language and not just literal language classification. The results of various models are compared and have come up as a result of research over time. The study explains why it is necessary for computers to understand the occurrence of figurative language, why it is yet a challenge and is being intensively worked on to date, and how it is different from literal language classification. This research also covers how well these models train on a specific type of figurative language and generalize on a few other similar types.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available