J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.

B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40031-021-00620-7

REVIEW PAPER

Exploiting Emojis in Sentiment Analysis: A Survey

Vandita Grover1

Received: 18 December 2020 / Accepted: 15 May 2021 / Published online: 12 June 2021
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2021

Abstract Sentiment analysis is now a prominent field of Introduction

interest owing to a growing trend of users expressing their
opinions on social media, review pages, feedback forms, Sentiment analysis identifies text sentiment and classifies
and other online channels. The machine learning approach the underlying sentiment’s polarity into positive, negative,
to sentiment analysis focuses on feature extraction methods or neutral. Text can be analyzed for sentiments at three
like constructing lexicons to learn sentiment polarity or levels – Document level, Sentence level, and Aspect Level
learning word embeddings and applying them for their use [1].
in machine learning algorithms for sentiment classification.
1. Document Level At the document level sentiment
But most popular machine learning approaches still cannot
analysis investigates whether the entire document has a
capture nuanced emotions like sarcasm, irony, etc. Emojis
positive, negative, or neutral sentiment. Documents
are now being used along with text by the users to express
like blogs, forum discussions, reviews, author insights,
emotions and hence can help researchers improve senti-
feedback questions in surveys, etc., generally have
ment classification tasks. Sentiment analysis powered by
detailed, yet multiple opinions at different positions in
emojis is still in the nascent phase and has gained some
the document. An overall sentiment score of a
pace in the last five years. The primary goal of this paper is
document can help infer the overall sentiment of the
to discuss the use of emojis that supplement the text to
document and extract useful information without the
express different emotions. This paper compares some
need to go through the entire document.
traditional text-based word embeddings and lexicons. Then
2. Sentence Level analysis classifies the sentiment polar-
the paper discusses the evolution of emoji-based lexicons
ity at the sentence level. Sentences are considered as
and emoji embeddings. Further, some deep learning
short documents and there are two classes of classifi-
approaches using emojis to improve existing sentiment
cation [2]. One is to determine if a sentence expresses a
classification tasks are studied. The main contribution of
sentiment or not and the other to classify the sentence
this paper is to survey various approaches to use emojis in
as positive, negative, or neutral. Sentence level clas-
sentiment analysis which to the best of our knowledge has
sification has become more popular with the rise in
not been done till now.
social media usage. YouTube comments and Twitter
tweets can help understand user sentiment better on
Keywords Sentiment analysis  Emojis 
trending topics like elections, pandemic, and even to
Sentiment classification  Emotion detection
glean insights on user view of the products.
3. Aspect Level Many times, it becomes important to
understand user opinion at a nuanced level. For
& Vandita Grover instance, a user may like the story and cinematography
vanditagrover@andc.du.ac.in of a movie but may not be too happy about the acting.
Thus, it is important to understand the different aspects
1
Department of Computer Science, Acharya Narendra Dev
College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

123
260
at a granular level and analyze users’ sentiments for
different aspects.
A summary of the three levels of sentiment analysis is
given in Fig. 1.
Sentiment classification techniques can be classified as
follows.
Supervised Machine Learning Approach
In the supervised approach training data is available for
each class of the sentiment. The classification model is
trained to learn document characteristics. Classification
algorithms include.
• Probabilistic models like naı̈ve Bayes, Bayesian Net-
work, Maximum Entropy [2] use mixture models that
assume that each class is a component of the mixture.
Each mixture component provides the probability of
sampling a term of the component [1].
• Linear classifiers like Support Vector Machines (SVM)
and Neural Networks interpret the document as an n-
dimensional feature space X = (9 1, 9 2, …, xn),
combine it with a vector A of the same dimension,
where A = (a1, a2, …, an) and a scalar B. The output Y
of the linear classifier determines the sentiment class of
our target [1], where Y is given as
0 till no new words are found [1].
Y ¼ AX þ B
Decision-tree classifiers decompose the training
documents’ feature space to split on condition(s) on
attribute(s), recursively, till the leaf nodes contain at least
a minimum threshold of records for classification [1].
There are a variety of splits:
• Single Attribute Split uses the presence or absence of
certain words at a node to determine the split.
Fig. 1 Levels of Sentiment Analysis
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
• Multi-attribute Split may use the similarity of docu-
ments to words or phrases or discriminants like Fisher
discriminant for the split.
Unsupervised Learning
Does not have pre-trained or pre-labeled data. Since we do
not invest time in training our classifier model, the learning
process is simplified and also becomes faster.
• In the lexicon-based approach, a sentiment lexicon is
created. Sentiment words like adverbs or adjectives and
sometimes nouns and words are associated with posi-
tive or negative orientation. Then overall polarity of the
document is computed by combining all the positive
and negative polarities of the words present in the
document and according to the collective score the
document is classified as positive for a positive overall
score, negative for a negative overall score, and neutral
if the overall score is zero.
The following strategies are typically used for automatic
lexicon creation
1. A dictionary-based lexicon takes a pre-determined set
of words with known orientations and then the set is
augmented with similar or opposite words iteratively,
2. Corpus-based lexicon takes context into account for
determining the sentiment of words. Syntactic patterns
and words that frequently occur together with an initial
set of words, together determine new sentiment words
with a context-specific orientation to build the corpus.
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
Hybrid Approach
Can combine the supervised and unsupervised approaches
to determine the sentiment of a document. Some approa-
ches like in [3] by Elshakankery et al. propose a hybrid
method that builds a lexicon to be further used to train a
machine learning model.
In most of the work done so far, the only text has been
used to extract features to create lexicons and word
embeddings. These have been fed to machine learning
classifiers to learn the underlying sentiment polarity.
Popular Text Sentiment Analysis Approaches
with Word Embeddings and Lexicons
Most machine learning sentiment analysis follows the text-
based approach to extract features to learn word embed-
dings or create word lexicons. In a supervised approach
word embeddings or vectors are learned to be fed to tra-
ditional machine learning classifiers or deep layered net-
works. Sentiment lexicon creation is an unsupervised
approach where a sentiment lexicon is created from the
word corpus to assign each word a sentiment polarity. In
subsequent subsections, popular word embeddings and
lexicons widely used for sentiment analysis are discussed.
Text Feature Extraction for Word Embeddings
The text needs to be represented or modeled in the form of
the real-valued vectors in a vector space. Each word rep-
resents some point in the vector space whose dimensions
can be determined through experimentation. These word
vectors are learned through neural networks with the
backpropagation algorithm. The word vectors eventually
learned can then be passed to the machine learning or deep
learning classifiers. Some popular approaches to learn word
embeddings are discussed as follows.
1. Google’s Word2Vec [4] is based on continuous bag-of-
words (CBoW) [5] and skip-gram [6] architectures for
word representations. CBoW captures local context
while the Skip-gram model takes into consideration the
context utilizing the partial sequence structure of a
sentence as a window for the target word. Skip-gram
captures the syntactic properties too [7].
Word2Vec can be used to cluster words that have
semantically similar features.
An important advantage for Word2Vec embeddings is
that they take into account semantic similarity and
work well even for noisy data. Since context coverage
is largely dependent on the type or domain of the
document, sentiment classification with skip-gram as
261
an underlying model of word representation will not
result in improving sentiment classification as demon-
strated by Bansal and Srivastava in [8]. Also, the size
of the training set can drastically impact the quality of
the word vectors [4]. Being statistical in nature it
cannot handle out of vocabulary words and may
require creating new representations for different
languages.
2. Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe)
proposed by Pennington et al. in [9] is a global log-
bilinear regression model for learning word represen-
tations in an unsupervised manner. It captures word
analogy, word similarity, and identifies named entities.
If i and j are two words say ice and steam whose
relationship is to be analyzed with word k, say solid.
Ice and solid are more likely to co-occur together as
compared to steam and solid. To capture such co-
occurrences, more weights are assigned to frequently
co-occurring words as compared to rare co-occur-
rences.
GloVe captures word analogies and takes into account
global occurrences of words in a given text corpus, but,
He et al. in [10] demonstrate that in the GloVe
embeddings sentiment information is not adequately
captured by GloVe.
3. Sentiment Specific Word Embedding to Classify Twitter
Sentiments (SSWE) was proposed by Tang et al. [5].
They extend the C&W model [11] proposed by
Collobert et al. and use three neural networks to
incorporate sentiment information to learn SSWE. The
basic model SSEWh predicts the sentiment polarity of
an n-gram while sliding the n-gram window across the
sentence. A hard constraint of i.e. [1,0] for positive and
[0,1] for negative sentiment classification is applied on
resulting multinomial distribution from a SoftMax
layer on top of the C&W layer. This hard constraint is
relaxed in the SSEWr model, such that if the predicted
positive score is greater than the predicted negative
score the tweet sentiment polarity is positive, and,
negative in the reverse situation. The SoftMax layer is
removed from SSEWr as probabilistic interpretation is
not required. SSEWh and SSEWr are unified with the
C&W model in the SSEWu model to capture sentiment
as well as syntactic information. This SSEWu model
predicts the language model score and sentiment score
respectively of an n-gram. The results show that the
sentiment-specific word embeddings effectively distin-
guish between words of opposite polarity.
The model captures positive and negative sentiment
information along with the syntactic information. But the
model assumes each word’s sentiment polarity in the local
window context and not how it contributes in the context of
123
262 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272

the entire tweet or sentence [12]. Thus, a word may have a
positive polarity but it might have been used in the nega-
tive context in the Tweet to express sarcasm. Consider the
tweet, ‘‘I love being ignored #sarcasm’’ [13], where the
polarity of the word love is positive but the global senti-
ment of the tweet is negative.
A comparative analysis of the above-discussed word
embedding approaches is tabulated in Table 1.
Text Sentiment Lexicons
The lexicon approach to sentiment analysis computes the
polarity of each word and combines the sentiment scores of
each word to compute the overall polarity of the document.
Few sentiment-specific lexicons that have gained popular-
ity in the past few years are discussed below.
1. SentiWordNet [15] is a readily available resource that
2. VADER was developed by Hutto and Gilbert as
contains term sentiment information of words in
WordNet [16]—an electronic lexical database. Words
in the WordNet database are organized based on
semantic relationship or their meanings i.e. if they are
polysemic or monosemic [16]. Words of similar
meanings are grouped in synsets. Each sense of the
word is a node and all word sense nodes are linked by
various semantic relationships like synonyms or
antonyms, meronyms or holonyms (consists of),
hypernyms or hyponyms (is-a) [16]. SentiWordNet
ranks synsets or terms based on subjectivity i.e., the
meaning they represent in the part of speech. Each
term is extracted and matched with the SentiWordNet
database to assign a positive or negative orientation.
All the terms are used to compute the overall score of
the document to determine its expression of sentiment.
The major drawback of this approach is that since
individual terms are extracted, documents that do not
express any opinion (neutral) or the ones that express
sarcasm or irony can often be missed.
Valence Aware Dictionary for sEntiment Reasoning
[17] by using quantitative and qualitative features to
produce a gold-standard lexicon [17]. They used

Table 1 Comparison of some Word Embedding Approaches for Text Sentiment Classification
Model Approach Type Advantages Disadvantages Complexity

Word2Vec Vector representations using Semi- Cosine Dependent on training O (N log V)

CBoW or skip-gram supervised distance of set size N: training corpus size
architecture vectors
Limited to training V: unique words in the
helps
corpus vocabulary vocabulary
capture
linguistic Only localcontext can be
similarities handled
Word sense
disambiguation not
possible
GloVe Works on Global counts and takes Unsupervised Takes global Sentiment information Worst Case: O(|V|2)
into account frequently co- co- not adequately |V|: words in the vocabulary X
occurring words occurrences captured matrix denotes word-word co-
of word occurrence which is sparse
Captures word Limited to training |C| corpus size
analogies corpus vocabulary
|V| combination of word-word co-
occurrence and Xi,j = k/ (ri,j)a is
modeled as power-law function
of frequency rank ri,j
(
Tighter Bound:
 OðjC jÞ  a\1
|jj X j
O jC j1=a a [ 1
Sentiment Learn sentiment specific word Supervised Takes into Focuses on sentiment SSWEh gets computationally
Specific embedding by training three account polarity of a word in expensive with the SoftMax
Word different neural networks and syntactic as the local context and layer taking O(|V|) time to
Embedding integrating sentiment well as not the global compute a probability
information in their loss semantic sentiment of the distribution over V words
functions information sentence SSWEr although removes the
softmax layer it still takes
7 weeks to complete with
|V|= 130,000 [14]

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
popular word banks like LIWC [18], ANEW [19], and
GI [20]. For lexical features, they included western
emoticons of the form:-), sentiment-related acronyms
like LOL, ROFL, etc., and slangs like meh, Nah, etc.
that have some sentimental value. They could generate
9000 candidate lexical features with this process. The
intensity rating [– 4–4] of candidate features was
collected from 10 independent human raters to estab-
lish the ground truth, where – 4 was extremely
negative and 4 was extremely positive. 7500 lexical
features with a non-zero mean rating and standard
deviation less than five were kept with their valence
scores that indicated their sentiment polarity. The
lexical features were combined with five generalizable
rules to include commonly used grammatical and
syntactical conventions that express the intensity of the
sentiments, viz. punctuation, capitalization, degree
modifiers, contrastive conjunction, and negation.
VADER exploits commonly used lexical features to
compute sentiment polarity but ignores features with
mean zero which might hold a clue to ironical
statements. Also, statements that may appear neutral
or even positive may have underlying sarcasm, which
VADER doesn’t capture.
3. Context-Aware Sentiment Lexicon Lu et. al in [21]
construct an automated context-aware sentiment lexi-
con to supplement a general-purpose lexicon, based on
an assumption that a set of domain-specific aspects
A = {A1, A2,…, Ak} are available beforehand.
where Lc is the sentiment lexicon dictionary of opinion
words w conditioned on various domain aspects. Instead of
relying on human labeling several signals like those from
the General-purpose sentiment lexicon, overall sentiment
rating like TripAdvisor, Epinion, Amazon reviews, The-
saurus like WordNet, and Linguistic Heuristics like and,
but, and negation rules are used. Signals from multiple
sources are combined so that context-dependent informa-
tion is not missed if a signal is weak.
To generate candidate lexicon entries clauses are chosen
as a unit to associate opinion words more accurately with
the aspects. The opinion text is segmented by tagging the
clause with the aspects whose word cluster overlaps with
the words in the clause. The non-aspect and non-stop words
are considered to be opinion words of the tagged aspects.
For more than one tag for a clause with different aspects,
the potential opinion words are paired with each aspect.
Sj e [-1,1] is the sentiment score of aspect-opinion pair
(aj,wj)
An objective function is then designed to assign a sen-
timent score to lexicon entries, under the following
constraints:
263
• The constraint of Sentiment Prior is a general-purpose
sentiment lexicon that gives good prior information.
Xn
minf j¼1 I G
j jSj  Gj jg
IjG = 1 and Gj = L(wj) if wj exists on lexicon L, 0 otherwise
This favors sentiment score assignment S that is closest to
the general-purpose lexicon G.
• The constraint for Overall Sentiment Rating that is
overall sentiment rating is positively correlated with the
sentiment score of the words in the document.
Xm
minf i¼1 I O i jf ðd i ; SÞ  Oi jg
Oi is the overall sentiment of the text di normalized to [–
1,1]
f(di, S) predicts the sentiment score of the text di and can be
defined by averaging the sentiment scores of (aj,wj)
X
n
f ð d i ; SÞ ¼ X ij Sj
y¼1
Xi,j is the number of times a pair j occurs in text di. In the
case of negation clauses, while estimating Xi,j the count of
the occurrence is replaced with -1.
IiO indicates if the overall sentiment is defined.
• The constraint for Similar Sentiment that is words wj,
wk appear as synonyms in thesaurus or pairs j and k are
concatenated with ‘and’ then their sentiments will tend
to become similar. The objective function is thus given
as
( )
X n X n
min Ajk jSj  Sk j
j¼1 k¼1
where Ajk e [0,1] is the confidence that pairs j and k have a
similar sentiment.
• The constraint for Opposite Sentiment is if words wj, wj
appear as antonyms in thesaurus or pairs j and k are
concatenated with ‘but’ then their sentiments will tend
to become opposite. Here the sign of the sentiment
score is involved because sentiments are at two
extremes, but their absolute scores are assumed to be
close. Two non-negative variables Sj? and Sj- are
introduced where at most one is active and the other is
zero. The active variable represents the sign of Sj and
the value represents the absolute value of Sj.
This can be represented as
123
264 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272

( )
n 
X  sentiment score close to zero. This makes detection of
min Sþ
j þ S
j ; nuanced emotions of sarcasm and irony difficult to spot.
j¼1 Depend on domain-specific characteristics of the text
subject to Sj ¼ Sþ  þ 
j þ Sj and Sj ; Sj  corpus that makes it difficult to generalize the sentiment
for j = 1 to n analysis approach.
Thus, novel approaches are needed to improve senti-
which forces at least one of Sj? or Sj - to be zero. The
ment classification. Emojis can become powerful tools in
final objective function thus becomes
(   !) sentiment analysis. For instance, they can supplement the
 þ 
Pn Pn Sj  Sj þ text and help determine complex emotions. This new
min j¼1 k¼1 B jk where Bjk e [0,1]
jS þ
j  Sk j
approach in the form of Emoji Powered Sentiment Anal-
ysis is discussed in the next section. Research work that
is the confidence that pairs j and k have opposite sentiment.
focuses on constructing emoji lexicons and emoji-based
The optimization problem is then transformed into an embeddings over the past few years are also discussed. In
equivalent linear programming problem with appropriate subsequent sections, some of the proposed deep learning
weighting parameters for each constraint set to a degree of approaches using emojis have been discussed followed by
trust on each source. tracking the temporal evolution of these approaches,
The proposed method performed best for F1 measure on challenges, and lastly, the future scope in the field of
two data sets used and gave mixed results for precision and emojis in sentiment classification.
recall against baselines, viz. Random for randomly guess-
ing sentiment, MPQA to predict the sentiment of the
opinion word with MPQA lexicon [22], General Inquirer Emojis in Sentiment Analysis
[23], and the Global Prediction Method [24].
This work handles opposing sentiments by taking into Emojis are fast becoming a new, simpler, yet expressive
account positive and negative signs. But the framework mode of communication across digital platforms and thus
depends heavily on signals like prior information, ratings hold tremendous potential to improve sentiment classifi-
which may differ across datasets, thus making it difficult to cation and emotion detection tasks. Emojis are pictographs
generalize the lexicon. having textual descriptions that have been converted to
A comparative analysis of the above lexicon approaches Unicode codes by Google [25].
is given in Table 2. According to a study by Konrad, et al. in [26] emojis are
used for—expressing emotions; emphasizing messages,
Issues and Challenges clarifying, acknowledging and reciprocal exchange, etc.

As seen above, the lexicon and word embedding approa- Here is an example of a conversation involving
ches tend to. emojis.

Separate opposing sentiments. Also, sometimes words or A: How was your day?
phrases are dropped because of a lower mean score or B: Fine.

Table 2 Comparison of above Sentiment Lexicon Approaches

Lexicon Approach Level Advantages Disadvantages

SentiWordNet Computes sentiment polarity of the words in Document- Takes into account the Individual words are used to compute
the WordNet database. All the words are level semantic meaning of sentiment polarity so parts in the
used to compute the overall document the words in a document that express irony or
sentiment score document sarcasm can often be missed
VADER Combine lexical features with grammatical Sentence Can compute polarity and Ignores features with mean zero that may
and syntactical conventions to compute Level sentiment intensity miss sarcasm or irony
sentiment polarity using commonly used
lexical features
Context- Uses linear programming optimization Aspect Takes into account Heavily dependent on signals, making it
Aware framework under four constraints of Prior Level opposing sentiments in difficult to generalize across different
Sentiment knowledge, Overall Rating, and Opposing a context datasets
Lexicon and Similar Sentiments

123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
Fig. 2 ML approaches to Emoji Powered Sentiment Classification
The use of has made it evident that B’s response is
neither neutral nor positive. Here ‘‘Fine’’ is being used
sarcastically and the use of emoji has made it clear that B is
not actually Fine.
Singh et al. in [27] replace emojis with their text
description, as it is common to find word embeddings of
the text. They experiment with a two-stack BiLSTM neural
network and show improvement in sentiment classification
and irony detection, concluding that emojis are more
effective in sentiment analysis.
Barbieri et al. have researched various aspects of emojis,
viz exploring emoji usage and meaning over different
languages [28], emoji-based skip-gram models [29],
Twitter emoji usage in Barcelona and Madrid [30],
studying emojis predictability [31], studying emoji pre-
diction [32] and predicting emojis [33] and [34].
Various approaches to construct emoji-based lexicons
and learning emoji embeddings for improving sentiment
classification have been experimented with. Apart from
traditional machine learning algorithms, nowadays
researchers have started to work with deep learning-based
classifiers given the tremendous text data on social media
and the web and the unprecedented processing power of
modern-day computer systems.
Figure 2 shows various machine learning approaches for
Emoji-powered sentiment analysis.
Emoji Embeddings
Some attempts to learn emoji embeddings to complement
text word embeddings for sentiment classification tasks are
been discussed below.
A Vector Space Skip-Gram Model for Twitter Emojis
Barbieri et al. in [29] mapped words and emojis of tweets
in the same vectorial space to build various skip-gram
models. Several variants of the skip-gram model with
different vector dimensions and different lengths of win-
dow size were experimented with to compile the
265
EmoTwi50 dataset with 50 pairs of emojis for their func-
tional similariÐty and relatedness. Here functional simi-
larity means if the two emojis are similar and relatedness
means if they can be used together. The variants of skip-
gram modeled varied on.
1. Dimensions of vectors: where various dimensions
between 50 -700 were tested and model with 300
dimensions gave better results.
2. Different window sizes between 3–12 (for skip-gram
model) were experimented with and models with
smaller window sizes (between 3–6) gave better results
as tweets are generally short in length.
3. The models were also trained on different datasets as
follows. The raw filter dataset had the entire context of
tweets, punctuations, and emojis. The clean filter
removed punctuation and stop words from the tweet.
The only filter retained only the emojis in the dataset.
A quantitative and qualitative evaluation for the emoji
embeddings from different variations of the skip-gram
model was conducted.
For quantitative evaluation, a human gold standard was
created where 8 participants rated the 50 pairs of emojis
that were then compiled in the EmoTwi50 dataset. Simi-
larity, relatedness, and average Pearson correlation were
computed between human gold standard and different
vector space skip-gram models generated. The clean
dataset showed more balanced results for similarity and
relatedness, which shows that the best way to filter the
dataset is by removing punctuations and stopwords.
The models could correlate emojis in the EmoTwi50
dataset, better for relatedness than the similarity task. Thus,
while creating embeddings from Word2Vec [4] algorithm
both emojis in the pair were considered in the context of
each other which influenced the creation of both their
embeddings.
For qualitative evaluation, the emoji vectors of the 100
emojis in the EmoTwi50 dataset were plotted using
t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE). The
t-SNE technique helped reduce the 300-dimensional vec-
tors into two dimensions. Similar vectors like happy faces
were grouped together but well separated from the sad face
vectors.
Also, K-means clustering was used to build 11 clusters
of 300 most frequent emojis. Despite the noise in a few
clusters most of the clusters were reported to have a clear
identity and consistency in groupings.
This work presents emoji embeddings created based on
emoji context. But how these emojis impact the sentiment
polarity when combined with the words in a sentence is yet
to be studied.
123
266
Emoji2Vec
In [35] Eisner et al. trained Emoji2Vec on Unicode
descriptions of emojis to augment sentiment classification
performance of classifiers. The emojis along with their
name and description were collected from the Unicode
emoji list [36]. For every emoji and its word description,
the corresponding vectors of the words in the description
were combined using Word2Vec.
The emojis along with their name and description were
collected from the Unicode emoji list and were trained
using Word2Vec embeddings. Thus, for every emoji and its
word description, the corresponding vectors of the words in
the description were combined using Word2Vec.
X
N verted to vector representations using publicly available
vd j ¼ wd k
k¼1
where vdj is a vector representation of the emoji
description.
wdk is the word embedding vector for the kth word in the
description of emoji j.
A vector xi for every emoji in the training set was
trained and probability for a match between representation
vector xi and description vector vdi was modeled using

r xTi  vd j_
The approach presents an interesting take on creating
vector representation of emojis trained by their description,
but it does not capture the local context-dependent usage of
emojis which could be important in capturing nuanced
emotions of sarcasm, frustration, irony, etc.
Semantic-Based Measure for Emoji Similarity
Wijeratne et al. [37] built a model to learn emoji embed-
dings from emoji meanings found in EmojiNet [38]. These
emoji meanings in EmojiNet [38] have been constructed
from the Unicode Consortium, Emojipedia, the Emoji
Dictionary, and BabelNet to create a nonuple. This nonuple
is a mapping of emojis which includes names, their
meanings, descriptions, keywords, and images with their
possible senses. The Emoji Dictionary lists sense labels as
different uses of the emoji. For instance, if an emoji has a
face keyword and a face can be used as a noun or a verb or
an adjective then the emoji with the keyword ’face’ in its
description will have three sense labels. Then the BabelNet
is used which lists different sense definitions for a sense
label. The most appropriate sense definition is selected
using a Word Sense Disambiguation task. Finally, each
emoji is represented as ei = (ui, ni, ci, di, Ki, Ii, Ri, Hi, Si).
For every ei: ui is its Unicode representation; ni is its name;
ci is the shortcode; di is the description; Ki is keywords set
to describe its intended meaning; Ii is images used to
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
represent the emoji on different platforms; Ri is set of
related emojis; Hi is the set of categories ei belongs to; Si is
the set of senses in which ei can be used.
Using EmojiNet meaning of the emojis in three different
forms were derived, viz.
1. Emoji Descriptions a description of the emoji’s
intended use
2. Emoji Sense Labels emoji’s sense and part of speech
tag pairs
3. Emoji Sense Definitions text descriptions that explain
the sense label for which an emoji can be used in a
sentence.
These three machine-readable emoji meanings are con-
word embeddings like Word2Vec. Twitter and Google
News corpora are used to train emoji embedding models.
The learned emoji vectors are used to replace the emojis.
The emoji embeddings are then obtained by averaging the
word vectors of all the words in emoji definitions to form a
300-dimension vector. Sense_all set combines all the
learned emoji embeddings. Thus, by using sense definitions
from EmojiNet different emoji embeddings were evaluated
to measure the similarity of emojis. 10 human evaluators
were roped in to create the EmoSim508 data set. Emo-
Sim508 consists of 508 Emoji pairs to analyze how well
the emoji embeddings performed in the similarity calcu-
lation task and results showed that the proposed emoji
embedding models could be used in real-world NLP and
sentiment analysis tasks.
Although the embedding approach takes into account
emoji meaning, description, and intended use to learn the
embeddings. It is yet to be seen how these sense-based
emoji embeddings perform on classification tasks like
sarcasm and irony detection.
Emoji Lexicons
In this subsection different emoji-based lexicons to
understand underlying sentiments of text supplemented
with emojis are discussed.
Automatic Construction of Emoji Lexicon
Kimura and Katsurai in [39] constructed an emoji senti-
ment lexicon automatically by extracting sentiment words
from WordNet-Affect [40]. WordNet Affect works like an
English dictionary to assign affective sentiment labels to
synsets of WordNet [16]. For a word in the dataset, the
corresponding synset in WordNet was derived and if the
synset also existed in the WordNet-Affect it was labeled by
one of the sentiment categories in a set S; eg. S could be
{joy, love, sadness}. A word was labeled with the most
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
frequent sentiment and added to the sentiment word list.
The word was discarded if the number of occurrences of
different affective sentiments was equal to avoid ambigu-
ity. An emoji sentiment score vector ES(ei, s) was com-
puted for a target emoji by evaluating the ratio of co-
occurrence frequency of the emoji with a sentiment word.
Large ES(ei, s) indicates a close relationship of emoji i with
the sentiment s. The corresponding emoji vector with s
dimensions is given as {ES (ei, s)}s e S.
The method does not require manual sentiment labeling
and builds an automatic sentiment lexicon by computing a
five-dimensional sentiment score for an emoji. But this
approach has a limited set of words as it refers only to the
words in WordNet-Affect. The method is unable to dis-
tinguish between nuanced emotions of anger, fear, and
disgust. A reason for this could be the discarding of equal
co-occurrence of different affective sentiments which
needs to be further evaluated.
Sentiment of Emojis
Novak et al. [41] computed the sentiment of the emojis
from the sentiment of the tweets in 13 European languages,
labeled for sentiment by 83 native speakers. The sentiment
of a tweet was represented by a 3 valued discrete variable
for the sentiment class, c 2 f1; 0; 1g, where the sentiment
for each tweet is negative, neutral, and negative in that
order. A discrete probability distribution for each category
(p-, p0, p?) was formed,
 
p ; p0 ; pþ ;
X tText [44]. The emoji is represented by two vectors that
pc ¼ 1;
c timent context. They propose two schemes, viz. Word-
where the components p- denotes negative, p0 denotes
neutral, and p? component denotes the positivity of the
emoji.
s the sentiment score is the mean of the probability
distribution of emojis in tweets with label ’c’ estimated
from the number of occurrences N, evaluated as.
X select emoji embedding sense it should attend on.
s¼ pc c;
The Emoji Sentiment Ranking lexicon of 751 frequent
emojis from 1.6 million annotated tweets is created. These
emojis are ranked according to their sentiment score s and
can be used by various machine classification algorithms
for sentiment classification.
This approach presents a publicly available lexicon for
annotating the text that occurs with emojis.
Although the emoji polarity is determined based on the
frequency occurrence of emoji in tweets across different
sentiment polarities, the sentiment score (s) of an emoji
may not be sufficient to determine the overall polarity of a
267
tweet or a sentence. For instance, consider a tweet I am
fine. This tweet may have a neutral sentiment, but if it is
clubbed with an emoji-like (neutral face emoji) [42], the
tweet’s polarity may change to negative because even
though the emoji has a neutral face it is used to convey
mild irritation and concern or dry humor [42].
Thus, it needs to be experimented on how the sentiment
polarity of the text along with the polarity of an emoji
together help determine the overall polarity of the tweet.
Studying this may help uncover complex emotions like
sarcasm, irony, frustration, etc.
Sentiment classification with emojis – the deep
learning approach
Some researchers have made attempts to improve the
sentiment classification tasks for given text corpus. Deep
learning models like LSTM and Recurrent Neural Net-
works are fast becoming popular for sentiment classifica-
tion with emojis. Here is a discussion on some work that
incorporates emojis while learning the sentiment labels
using deep learning techniques.
Bi-sense Emoji Embedding and Attention Based
LSTM for Twitter Sentiment Analysis
Chen et al. in [43] propose an emoji attention scheme for
Twitter Sentiment Analysis. They consider each emoji as a
special word and initialize emoji embeddings using fas-
mean two senses; one each for positive and negative sen-
guide Attention-based LSTM and Multi-Level LSTM. A
senti-emoji embedding is obtained by computing the
weighted average of bi-sense emoji embeddings using a
self-select attention mechanism.
In the Word-guide attention method, each context word
guides the attention weights so that the model can self-
In the Multi-level Attention-based LSTM the modified
senti-emoji embedding vector is at the sentence (tweet)
level. So instead of the word, the attention function utilizes
the final state vector of the last LSTM unit.
VADER is used for the data annotation process that
generates weak sentiment labels. Tweets with strong sen-
timent signals are kept while the tweets with scores in the
range (-0.6, 0.6) are discarded. Tweets with absolute sen-
timent scores in (0.60, 0.70) are manually labeled by two
graduate students. If the two annotations disagree the
Tweets are discarded and so are neutral tweets. They also
validate the information that emojis occur in tweets that
contain contradictory information to the emoji sentiment.
123
268
Both Word Attention and Multi-Level Attention schemes
achieved superior overall performance outperforming
baseline T-LSTM and E-LSTM models.
Now it remains to be studied whether the discarded
neutral tweets were discarded because they were actually
neutral or contained contradictory information. If the
tweets were discarded because the annotations disagreed or
because they contained contradictory sentiments, those
tweets need to be studied for sarcasm or irony.
HEMOS
In the literature [45] Li et al. proposed, HEMOS, humor
detecting deep learning model. The attention-based Bi-
LSTM model was applied for four categories of classifi-
cation, viz, positive, negative, optimistic humor for jokes,
self-mockery, jocosity, etc., and pessimistic humor for
sarcasm and irony on Chinese Weibo posts. The model was
fed with on Weibo’s humorous posts with internet slangs
and emojis projected into a vector representation. An
attention mechanism was used to extract important words
that contributed to the meaning of the posts.
For an n-word sentence, an embedding matrix MnXd is
generated by the word encoder, where d is the embedding
size of the word embedding. M is fed as an input to the bi-
directional LSTM. The sentence-level vector is built pro-
gressively from word vectors using the attention structure.
The attention mechanism extracts words with important
meaning to the post.
The word annotation with hidden state ht of the bi-di-
rectional LSTM is fed to one-layer MLP to learn ut the
hidden representation. The word’s importance for word-
level context vector uw is measured as the similarity of ut.
ut ¼ tanhðW w ht þ bw Þ
The softmax function is used to obtain normalized
importance weight at.
 
exp u> t uw
at ¼  
Rt exp u> t uw
The sentence vector c is computed as the weighted sum
of the word annotations.
X
c¼ at ht
t the emoji set impacts the performance of the model with
uw, the context vector is randomly initialized. The
classification probabilities y’ are given as
0
y ¼ softmaxðW c c þ bc Þ
where the weight Wc and the bias bc are computed during
the training process.
The results showed that slang and emoji lexicons rec-
ognized humor and the optimistic and pessimistic humor
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
category improved the bi-polarity of sentiment prediction.
But the model detected sarcasm and irony with precision at
65% and recall at 72.22%.
DEEPMOJI
In [46] Felbo et al. train the DEEPMOJI model to learn rich
representations with emotional labels over a dataset of
1246 million tweets with 64 common emojis. The target
task is to improve sentiment classification by treating
emojis as a proxy of emotional content. The emojis were
utilized as noisy labels for pretraining. For each emoji
irrespective of the number of occurrences in a tweet; a
separate tweet is saved for pretraining with the emoji as a
label. This captures diverse emotional content and makes
pre-training a single-label classification. A variant of
LSTM with an embedding layer of 256 dimensions is used
for word embedding. Each embedding dimension is con-
strained within [-1,1] by using a hyperbolic tanh function.
Two bi-directional LSTM layers with 512 hidden units in
each direction along with an attention mechanism to decide
the importance of each word for prediction are utilized. A
single parameter per input channel is utilized:
et ¼ ht wa
ht: word representation at time t.
wa: weight matrix of attention layer
expðet Þ
at ¼ PT
i¼1 expðei Þ
at: attention importance scores of each time step
X
T
v¼ ai hi
i¼1
v: representation vector of the text.
v is passed to the softmax layer for the final classifica-
tion task.
A chain-thaw transfer learning approach is proposed,
that sequentially un-freezes and fine-tunes a layer at a time
is used for fine-tuning the model for the target tasks like
emotion, sarcasm, and sentiment detection.
They show that the model performs better in general
when emojis are used in pre-training and the diversity of
the performance dipping with the reduced emoji set.
Emoji Based Sentiment Classification of Arabic
Tweets with Deep RNNs
Al-Azani and El-Alfy in [47] explored recurrent structures
LSTM and GRU (gated recurrent unit) networks to detect
sentiment polarity of Arabic microblogs. They take into
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
account the Emoji Sentiment Ranking [41] by Novak et al.
for feature extraction. Of the 751 emojis, 429 emojis
appeared in the Arabic dataset and the ones that don’t
appear in the dataset are ignored. The Principal Component
analysis is then applied to reduce the dimensionality to 100
features. Different deep learning architectures LSTM and
GRU in both unidirectional and bi-directional forms are
applied to detect sentiment polarity of the Arabic micro-
blog. The bi-directional GRU followed by the by-direc-
tional LSTM was the most effective combination for
sentiment classification.
Temporal Evolution of Emoji-Based Sentiment
Analysis
The study of emojis in sentiment analysis has gained
traction over the past five years. The evolution of emoji-
based sentiment analysis has been summarized in Table 3.
From the year 2015 to 2017 we see a focus on creating
emoji sentiment lexicons and learning emoji embeddings to
improve sentiment classification tasks by incorporating the
emojis. Years 2017 to 2020 the interest has grown to
incorporate emojis in deep learning networks like LSTM
and RNNs to not only improve sentiment classification but
Table 3 Emoji-Based Sentiment Analysis – Temporal Evolution
Year Work
2015 Sentiment of Emojis
2016 Emoji2Vec
Emojinet
What does emoji mean
2017 Automatic construction of emoji sentiment lexicon
Measure of emoji similarity
Using millions of emoji occurrence to learn domain
representations for emotion, sentiment and sarcasm
detection
2018 Twitter sentiment analysis with emojis
Emoji based sentiment classification of Arabic
microblogs
2020 HEMOS
269
also understand fine-grained emotions of humor and
sarcasm.
Challenges
The research work discussed in this paper shows that using
emojis in the sentiment classification task can help improve
the performance of the classifiers but this approach is not
without its challenges. Here are a few challenges that need
to be addressed.
1. Emoji representations are different across platforms
and new emojis get introduced to the Unicode standard
from time to time [48], which makes it difficult to
understand their meaning.
2. The use of emojis can vary across cultures, social
context, and author preference, thus the original intent
may be lost in interpretation [48].
3. Emojis can enhance or reverse the polarity of a tweet
or sentence sentiment. Thus, the tweet sentiment and
the sentiment of the emoji need to be evaluated
separately as well as how the overall sentiment
changes when the text in question and the emoji are
used together.
Approach Authors
Created emoji sentiment lexicon by computing the sentiment score Novak
based on the occurrences of an emoji with positive, neutral, or et al
negative tweets. [41]
Learned emoji embeddings from description [35] Eisner
et al
Machine-readable emoji inventory based on emoji senses [38] Wijeratne
et al
Skip gram model for emoji embeddings [29] Barbeiri
et al
Emoji lexicon creation based on the frequency of occurrence of Kimura
emoji with a sentiment word in the Wordnet-Affect [39] and
Katsurai
Comparison of vector representations of emojis to determine their Wijeratne
similarity [37] et al
Used emojis as sentiment labels to learn word embeddings using bi- Felbo et al
directional LSTMs to improve sentiment classification [46]
Bi-sense emoji embeddings and attention-based LSTM [43] Chen et al
Deep Recurrent Neural Networks [47] Al-Azani
and El-
Alfy
Emoji representation are used for pretraining and then Bi-LSTM, Li et al
attention-based mechanism is fed word with embeddings to detect
emotion, sarcasm, and sentiment. [45]
123
270
Fig. 3 5 Year Timeline of Emoji Powered Sentiment Analysis
4. To our knowledge, there is no benchmark dataset for
tweets and emojis for sarcasm and irony detection,
which makes the task of identifying complex emotions
difficult.
Conclusion and Future Work
A five-year timeline in Fig. 3 shows that interest and
research in exploiting emojis in sentiment analysis have
increased tremendously in the past five years.
The above-discussed studies have shown that the emojis
in sentiment analysis can be used to enhance the word
embeddings and vector space as well as create rich senti-
ment lexicons. The use of emojis along with text improves
the classifier performance. Also, the various deep learning
models are now becoming popular tools for the sentiment
classification task.
But it is yet to be seen how emojis can help in identi-
fying complex and nuanced emotions like those of sarcasm,
irony, dark humor, etc. and if the classification perfor-
mance can be improved further.
In the future, it can be studied to incorporate multiple
sense of emojis co-occurring with text and to perform
multi-class classification instead of just positive and neg-
ative classes to uncover the underlying complex emotions
like sarcasm, irony, frustration, etc. in the text.
123
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
Funding Not Applicable.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. W. Medhat, A. Hassan, H. Korashy, Sentiment analysis algo-
rithms and applications: a survey. Ain Shams Eng. J. 5(4),
1093–1113 (2014)
2. Rachid, B.A., Azza, H. and Henda, B.G., 2018. Sentiment
Analysis Approaches based on Granularity Levels.
3. K. Elshakankery, M.F. Ahmed, HILATSA: A hybrid Incremental
learning approach for Arabic tweets sentiment analysis. Egyptian
Informatics Journal 20(3), 163–171 (2019)
4. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G. and Dean, J., 2013. Efficient
estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781.
5. Tang, D., Wei, F., Yang, N., Zhou, M., Liu, T. and Qin, B., 2014,
June. Learning sentiment-specific word embedding for twitter
sentiment classification. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual
Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol-
ume 1: Long Papers) (pp. 1555–1565).
6. McCormick, C., 2016. Word2vec tutorial-the skip-gram model.
7. Komninos, A. and Manandhar, S., 2016, June. Dependency based
embeddings for sentence classification tasks. In Proceedings of
the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the asso-
ciation for computational linguistics: human language tech-
nologies (pp. 1490–1500).
8. B. Bansal, S. Srivastava, Sentiment classification of online con-
sumer reviews using word vector representations. Procedia
Computer Sci. 132, 1147–1153 (2018)
J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272
9. Pennington, J., Socher, R. and Manning, C.D., 2014, October.
Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of
the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language
processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532–1543).
10. He, R., Lee, W.S., Ng, H.T. and Dahlmeier, D., 2018. Exploiting
document knowledge for aspect-level sentiment classifica-
tion. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1806.04346.
11. Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu,
K. and Kuksa, P., 2011. Natural language processing (almost)
from scratch. Journal of machine learning research, 12(-
ARTICLE), pp.2493–2537.
12. S. Xiong, H. Lv, W. Zhao, D. Ji, Towards Twitter sentiment
classification by multi-level sentiment-enriched word embed-
dings. Neurocomputing 275, 2459–2466 (2018)
13. S.K. Bharti, B. Vachha, R.K. Pradhan, K.S. Babu, S.K. Jena,
Sarcastic sentiment detection in tweets streamed in real time: a
big data approach. Digital Commun. Netw. 2(3), 108–121 (2016)
14. https://aylien.com/blog/overview-word-embeddings-history-word
2vec-cbow-glove
15. Esuli, A. and Sebastiani, F., 2006, May. Sentiwordnet: A publicly
available lexical resource for opinion mining. In LREC (Vol. 6,
pp. 417–422).
16. C. Fellbaum, WordNet. in Theory and Applications of Ontology:
Computer Applications (Springer, 2010).
17. Gilbert, C.H.E. and Hutto, E., 2014, June. Vader: A parsimonious
rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text.
In Eighth International Conference on Weblogs and Social
Media (ICWSM-14). Available at (20/04/16) . social. gatech.
edu/papers/icwsm14. vader. hutto. pdf (Vol. 81, p. 82).
18. Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E. and Booth, R.J., 2001. Linguistic
inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates, 71(2001), p.2001.
19. Bradley, M.M. and Lang, P.J., 1999. Affective norms for English
words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Vol.
30, No. 1, pp. 25–36). Technical report C-1, the center for
research in psychophysiology, University of Florida.
20. Stone, P.J. and Hunt, E.B., 1963, May. A computer approach to
content analysis: studies using the general inquirer system.
In Proceedings of the May 21–23, 1963, spring joint computer
conference (pp. 241–256).
21. Lu, Y., Castellanos, M., Dayal, U. and Zhai, C., 2011, March.
Automatic construction of a context-aware sentiment lexicon: an
optimization approach. In Proceedings of the 20th international
conference on World wide web (pp. 347–356).
22. Hassan, A. and Radev, D., 2010, July. Identifying text polarity
using random walks. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting
of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 395–403).
23. Hatzivassiloglou, V. and McKeown, K., 1997, July. Predicting
the semantic orientation of adjectives. In 35th annual meeting of
the association for computational linguistics and 8th conference
of the european chapter of the association for computational
linguistics (pp. 174–181).
24. Lu, Y., Zhai, C. and Sundaresan, N., 2009, April. Rated aspect
summarization of short comments. In Proceedings of the 18th
international conference on World wide web (pp. 131–140).
25. https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-18.html
26. A. Konrad, S.C. Herring, D. Choi, Sticker and emoji use in
facebook messenger: implications for graphicon change. J. Com-
put.-Mediat. Commun. 25(3), 217–235 (2020)
27. Singh, A., Blanco, E. and Jin, W., 2019, June. Incorporating
emoji descriptions improves tweet classification. In Proceedings
of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the
Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language
Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) (pp.
2096–2101).
271
28. Barbieri, F., Kruszewski, G., Ronzano, F. and Saggion, H., 2016,
October. How cosmopolitan are emojis? Exploring emojis usage
and meaning over different languages with distributional
semantics. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM international con-
ference on Multimedia (pp. 531–535).
29. Barbieri, F., Ronzano, F. and Saggion, H., 2016. What does this
emoji mean? a vector space skip-gram model for twitter emojis.
In Calzolari N, Choukri K, Declerck T, et al, editors. Proceedings
of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources
and Evaluation (LREC 2016); 2016 May 23–28; Portorozˇ,
Slovenia. Paris: European Language Resources Association
(ELRA); 2016. p. 3967–72.. ELRA (European Language
Resources Association).
30. Barbieri, F., Espinosa-Anke, L. and Saggion, H., 2016. Revealing
patterns of Twitter emoji usage in Barcelona and Madrid. Fron-
tiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. 2016;(Artificial
Intelligence Research and Development) 288: 239–44.
31. Barbieri, F., Ballesteros, M. and Saggion, H., 2017. Are emojis
predictable?. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07285.
32. Barbieri, F., Marujo, L., Karuturi, P., Brendel, W. and Saggion,
H., 2018. Exploring emoji usage and prediction through a tem-
poral variation lens. arXiv preprint
http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.00731.
33. Barbieri, F., Camacho-Collados, J., Ronzano, F., Anke, L.E.,
Ballesteros, M., Basile, V., Patti, V. and Saggion, H., 2018, June.
Semeval 2018 task 2: Multilingual emoji prediction. In Pro-
ceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic
Evaluation (pp. 24–33).
34. Barbieri, F., Anke, L.E., Camacho-Collados, J., Schockaert, S.
and Saggion, H., 2018. Interpretable emoji prediction via label-
wise attention LSTMs. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on
Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp.
4766–4771).
35. Eisner, B., Rocktäschel, T., Augenstein, I., Bošnjak, M. and
Riedel, S., 2016. emoji2vec: Learning emoji representations from
their description. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.08359.
36. http://www.unicode.org/emoji/charts/ full-emoji-list.html
37. Wijeratne, S., Balasuriya, L., Sheth, A. and Doran, D., 2017,
August. A semantics-based measure of emoji similarity. In Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelli-
gence (pp. 646–653).
38. Wijeratne, S., Balasuriya, L., Sheth, A. and Doran, D., 2016,
November. Emojinet: Building a machine readable sense inven-
tory for emoji. In International conference on social informat-
ics (pp. 527–541). Springer, Cham.
39. Kimura, M. and Katsurai, M., 2017, July. Automatic construction
of an emoji sentiment lexicon. In Proceedings of the 2017 ieee/
acm international conference on advances in social networks
analysis and mining 2017 (pp. 1033–1036).
40. Strapparava, C. and Valitutti, A., 2004, May. Wordnet affect: an
affective extension of wordnet. In Lrec (Vol. 4, No. 1083–1086,
p. 40).
41. P.K. Novak, J. Smailović, B. Sluban, I. Mozetič, Sentiment of
emojis. PloS one 10(12), 1035 (2015)
42. Emojipedia: https://emojipedia.org
43. Chen, Y., Yuan, J., You, Q. and Luo, J., 2018, October. Twitter
sentiment analysis via bi-sense emoji embedding and attention-
based LSTM. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM international
conference on Multimedia (pp. 117–125).
44. https://github.com/facebookresearch/fastText
45. D. Li, R. Rzepka, M. Ptaszynski, K. Araki, HEMOS: A novel
deep learning-based fine-grained humor detecting method for
sentiment analysis of social media. Inf. Process. Manage. 57(6),
102290 (2020)
46. Felbo, B., Mislove, A., Søgaard, A., Rahwan, I. and Lehmann, S.,
2017. Using millions of emoji occurrences to learn any-domain
123
272 J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (February 2022) 103(1):259–272

representations for detecting sentiment, emotion and sar- lexica from unsupervised sentiment analysis of their descriptions.
casm. arXiv preprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.00524. Expert Syst. Appl. 103, 74–91 (2018)
47. Al-Azani, S. and El-Alfy, E.S., 2018, March. Emojis-based sen-
timent classification of Arabic microblogs using deep recurrent Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
neural networks. In 2018 International Conference on Computing jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sciences and Engineering (ICCSE) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
48. M. Fernández-Gavilanes, J. Juncal-Martı́nez, S. Garcı́a-Méndez,
E. Costa-Montenegro, F.J. González-Castaño, Creating emoji

123