Deep learning techniques for contextual sentiment analysis in Urdu with negation awareness


Abstract

Sentiment analysis for under-resourced languages like Urdu presents substantial challenges due to the paucity of linguistic resources and the language's inherent morphological complexity. This thesis confronts these challenges through a systematic, comparative study to identify an optimal architectural approach for Urdu sentiment classification. The research addresses the critical issues of the "preprocessing dilemma" and ineffective negation handling by developing and rigorously evaluating two distinct models: a fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa transformer and a novel hybrid model combining a Bidirectional LSTM with rule-based negation handling. The investigation begins by establishing a baseline, where a zero-shot multilingual model proves inadequate, achieving a Macro F1-Score of only 0.20 due to severe class bias. Subsequently, both candidate architectures undergo a methodical two-stage hyperparameter optimization of batch size and learning rate. The empirical results reveal a crucial trade-off between peak performance and model stability. The hybrid LSTM model achieves the peak performance, with a superior Macro F1-Score of 0.8196, demonstrating the potential of explicit negation handling. However, analysis of its training dynamics reveals significant instability and a strong tendency to overfit. In contrast, the fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa model, while achieving a slightly lower F1-Score of 0.7840, demonstrates a markedly more stable and consistent learning process, indicating better generalization. Consequently, this study concludes that the fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa is the more robust and reliable model, providing strong evidence that end-to-end fine-tuning of large transformer models is a highly effective strategy for morphologically rich, low-resource languages.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].