Mining Emotions on Plutchik’s Wheel
2020 Seventh International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS) | 978-0-7381-1180-3/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/SNAMS52053.2020.9336534
Abhijit Mondal, Swapna S. Gokhale
Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering
Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269
{abhijit.mondal,swapna.gokhale}@uconn.edu
A BSTRACT
Tweets embed rich information about users’ moods,
emotions and feelings. Mining for these latent emotions
can offer clues about users’ affective state on a broad
range of topics ranging from their mental health to
political opinions. This paper proposes a supervised
machine learning approach to detect emotions from
tweets. The approach is built around a Crowdflower data
set of 40, 000 tweets labeled with 13 distinct emotions.
These 13 labels were mapped to emotions guided by the
Plutchik’s wheel, and are further organized into pairs
of polar opposites leading to four binary classification
problems: Love vs. Hate, Joy vs. Sadness, Trust vs.
Disgust, and Anticipation vs. Surprise. For each classifi-
cation problem, five supervised machine learning models
were trained on a combination of linguistic and metadata
features extracted from the tweets. The performance of
these models is evaluated using sensitivity, specificity,
accuracy and AUC. These results suggest that Random
Forest and Support Vector Machine classifiers show
close to highest accuracy in distinguishing between
pair-wise emotions. Although the emotions in each
pair are polar opposites on the Plutchik’s wheel, their
classification performance differs widely; distinguishing
between Love vs. Hate and Anticipation vs Surprise
show the highest (87%) and lowest (77%) accuracy
respectively. Feature importance splits the discriminating
power 60% − 40% over linguistic and metadata features.
Our results thus suggest that every pair of polar opposite
emotions are not equally differentiable, and using both
linguistic and metadata features leads to better accuracy
over exclusively using text-based or sentiment features.
I. I NTRODUCTION & M OTIVATION
Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook
and Instagram offer a forum for people to share and
communicate with large audiences as they go about their
daily lives. Twitter is one of the most popular social
media platforms, with nearly 330 million monthly active
users on an average as of 2019 [4]. Twitter’s large,
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Politecnica de Madrid. Downloaded on September 07,2022 at 12:57:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
active user base generates volumes of textual content in
the form of tweets. This content shared by the users is
interactive, spontaneous, conversational, and unfiltered.
Tweets thus contain a treasure trove of information that
can offer clues about users’ opinions, thoughts, and
feelings on a variety of topics from politics to restaurants
to even their mental health.
The plethora of information embedded in these tweets
has attracted significant attention in their mining and
analysis. A large body of work has focused on detecting
and classifying the sentiment and/or polarity of the
tweets [24]. In binary sentiment analysis, tweets are
grouped according to positive and negative polarities,
whereas in multi-class analysis they are grouped into
more than two classes according to the strength of the
embedded sentiment. Tweets can also be mined for
affective information (moods, emotions, and feelings) of
the tweeters. Emotion mining thus can be viewed as a
deeper, more advanced form of sentiment analysis [13].
This detailed, granular information can support a range
of applications such as targeted advertising, recommend-
ing books, music and videos, predicting the movements
of stock markets, launching television programs, detect-
ing and monitoring mental health, and gathering public
opinion on political and sensitive issues.
In this paper, we develop a supervised machine
learning framework to detect emotions in tweets. The
approach is built around a data set of 40000 manu-
ally annotated tweets into one of the 13 labels [21].
We map these 13 manual annotations to 8 emotions,
guided by the Plutchik’s wheel [18]. We further organize
these 8 emotions into four pairs of polar opposites and
formulate four binary classification problems, namely,
Joy vs. Sadness, Love vs. Hate, Trust vs. Disgust and
Anticipation vs. Surprise. From the content of the tweets,
we extract linguistic features including unigrams and
Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF),
and 17 metadata features including Vader and TextBlob
sentiment scores [1], and numbers of hashtags, punc-
tuation marks, etc. For each classification problem, we
 train five supervised machine learning models using a hate. A major axis sandwiching remorse is loathe, which
combination of linguistic and a subset of discriminatory is very close to hate. Furthermore, in real life and in
metadata features identified by the χ2 test. The models the emotion classification literature [2] love and hate
were evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, are often considered contradictory. Therefore, we include
and AUC. Finally, we conduct importance analysis to Love vs. Hate as the fourth problem.
determine the relative contribution of linguistic and
metadata features.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sec-
tion II describes the model of emotions. Section III
outlines preprocessing and feature extraction. Section IV
provides an overview of models and performance met-
rics. Section V analyzes the results. Section VI com-
pares and contrasts related research. Section VII offers
concluding remarks and directions for future research.

II. M ODEL OF E MOTIONS

Each tweet in the Crowdflower data was tagged with
one of 13 emotions; Table I shows their frequencies.
Emotion # tweets Emotion # tweets
Worry 8459 Love 3842
Boredom 179 Surprise 2187
Neutral 8638 Sadness 5165
Anger 110 Empty 827 Figure 1: Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions
Enthusiasm 759 Happiness 5209
Hate 1323 Relief 1526
Fun 1776 Original Mapped
Happiness, Relief, Fun Joy
Table I: Emotion Labels & Frequencies Enthusiasm, Love Anticipation
Love, Relief Trust
We considered two popular models of emotion from Worry, Boredom Disgust
psychology: Parrot’s six classes of primary emotions: Sadness Sadness
Love Love
love, joy, anger, sadness, fear and surprise [14] and Hate Hate
Plutchik’s wheel of emotions [18]. In the literature, Surprise Surprise
Parrot’s model provides the anchor for multi-label clas-
Table II: Labels → Plutchik’s Emotions
sification of tweets into six different classes [16, 12, 15].
However, emotion detection via multi-label classification
yields lower performance [20] compared to binary clas- III. F EATURE E XTRACTION
sification, which drove our interest towards the latter. Our data set only consisted of the text of the tweets
In the Plutchik’s wheel shown in Figure 1, emotions and their labels. It did not include any other common
are organized along four major axes, each representing information such as mentions and retweets. Therefore,
polar opposites. This organization naturally lends itself we relied primarily on text analysis to extract linguistic
to binary classification, where each pair of opposing and metadata features. Prior to feature extraction, we
emotions can be formulated into a single problem. We removed 135 duplicate tweets and pre-processed the
mapped the 13 labels to 8 emotions on the Plutchik’s remaining by applying the standard steps: coverting to
wheel as shown in Table II, ultimately leading to four lower case, removing punctuation, links and numbers,
binary classification problems: Love vs. Hate, Joy vs checking spelling and stemming. These standard steps
Sadness, Trust vs Disgust, and Anticipation vs Surprise. were bookended by two that are unique to this problem.
Three of the four problems include pairs of opposing The first comprises processing emoticons, often used
emotions on the major axes of Plutchik’s wheel, only to express emotions and hence need to be retained.
Love vs. Hate is not expressly mapped to a major axis. Table III shows the frequency of popular emoticons
On the wheel, the emotion antithetical to love is remorse. for the 13 labels. The order of columns is “Smiley
Our data set did not include remorse, but it did include Face”, “Goofy”, ”Crying”, “Thumbs Up”, ”Like” and

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Politecnica de Madrid. Downloaded on September 07,2022 at 12:57:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 “Frown”. Smiley face is the most common emoticon sentiment polarity for each tweet, which ranges from −1
regardless of whether the labeled emotion is positive to +1, where −1, 0 and +1 indicate negative, neutral
or negative. Overall, the tendency to use emoticons is and positive respectively. Vader computes a normalized
higher for positive emotions such as happiness, surprise, and weighted composite score obtained by analyzing
love, fun and relief compared to negative emotions such each word in a tweet for its direction of sentiment
as boredom, empty, hate, and sadness. Worry is the as a negative (positive) valency for negative (positive)
only negative emotion that stands out in its high use sentiment. It therefore ranges from −1 to +1 depending
of the smiley face; here the smiley may have been on the net sentiment of the tweet. We use both TextBlob
used to express sarcasm. Emoticons were replaced with and Vader because Vader may be more sensitive to
emotion words using the emoticons replacement tool sentiments than TextBlob, even though TextBlob may
emoji [11]. The final step is data correction, employed be better correlated with reviewer scores [1]. Additional
after observing that some words (not stop-words) occur metadata features include the numbers of words and
with nearly equal frequency in both classes. These words unique words, numbers of YouTube, image and other
are removed because they may not contribute to the links, numbers of all-capital words, punctuation marks,
classification. and emoticons because these may be used to emphasize
Emotion ;) :3 :’( (Y) (y) =[
or accentuate emotions, and often substitute the visual
Worry 28 26 10 1 0 0 clues gleaned from facial expressions and body language.
Boredom 2 4 0 1 0 0 We used Pearson’s χ2 test scores to select the top
Anger 19 15 15 1 0 0 10 out of the 17 features. χ2 tests a null hypothesis
Sadness 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hate 2 4 3 0 0 1 that the output label has a strong relationship with each
Love 25 7 0 4 1 0 feature in the set or not. Feature-wise χ2 scores for
Surprise 12 4 2 0 0 0 each problem are summarized in Table IV. The scores
Happiness 53 8 0 1 1 0
Relief 11 5 0 1 1 0
marked in red indicate that the particular feature is not
Fun 19 5 0 1 0 0 discriminatory in that problem. The table indicates that
Enthusiasm 3 3 1 0 0 1 four features, namely, the TextBlob and Vader sentiment
Neutral 21 17 1 3 1 0 scores, and the numbers of stop words and characters
Empty 3 3 0 0 0 0
are discriminatory for all problems while the numbers of
Table III: Frequency of Emoticons Per Emotion Label image and YouTube links, emoticons and ellipsis ending
are not discriminatory for any problem. The rest produce
mixed results, for example, the numbers of words and
A. Linguistic Features unique words can discriminate between pairs of emotions
We considered two popular linguistic features: Term in all problems except for Joy vs. Sadness.
Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) vec-
torization and n-grams using the bag-of-words approach. IV. M ODELS & P ERFORMANCE
These features were extracted using the TF-IDF vector-
izer class of Scikit-Learn library. TF-IDF refers to a We considered several popular supervised machine
scoring measure used in information retrieval or sum- learning models including Random Forest (RF), Support
marization. It measures how relevant a word is in a Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes (NB), Gradient
document by assigning an additional weight to those Boosting (GB), and Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP). To
words that occur more frequently through the data. select model parameters, we plotted the error in the
TF-IDF was computed for 6148 unigrams. In general, F-measure as a function of different parameter (like
unigrams that denote optimism such as good, love, like, number of decision trees in RF, different kernel functions
fun occur frequently in the classes Joy, Love Trust and in SVM, number of layers or neurons in different layers
Anticipation. The opposing emotions in each problem in MLP) settings [3].
show a larger frequency of unigrams with negative In the RF model, the number of decision trees is set to
connotation including sad, oh, feel, don’t, etc. 30, the number of features used by each tree is equal to
the square root of the number of total features, and each
B. Metadata Features tree was allowed to grow fully up to its leaves. We used
Metadata features include sentiment scores of each SVMs with linear kernel with other default parameters.
original tweet (before preprocessing) computed using MLP model was built with 3 hidden layers containing
TextBlob and Vader libraries. TextBlob calculates the 10, 5, and 2 neurons respectively, and the rectifier linear

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Politecnica de Madrid. Downloaded on September 07,2022 at 12:57:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 χ2 Test Scores L J A T
Feature ML
L J A T Metric vs vs vs vs
Model
vs vs vs vs H S S D
H S S D RF 0.87 0.78 0.73 0.76
Vader score 406.7 739.3 41.3 468.3 SVM 0.86 0.78 0.73 0.77
Textblob score 262.5 303.9 17.9 246.3 Accuracy MLP 0.83 0.75 0.65 0.71
# characters 213.4 161.9 38.2 115.4 NB 0.86 0.76 0.71 0.72
# stopwords 99.3 129.5 24.8 274.0 GB 0.85 0.74 0.70 0.76
# words 94.2 11.9 8.6 124.6 RF 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.62
# unique words 81 4.2 8.7 105.3 SVM 0.94 0.86 0.88 0.66
# mentions 38.1 63.2 1.5 25.1 Sensitivity MLP 0.90 0.82 0.71 0.54
# ‘@’ 37.3 60.8 1.3 25.8 NB 0.96 0.83 0.91 0.56
# all capitals 21.1 28.7 5.3 4.9 GB 0.91 0.87 0.90 0.63
# ‘!’ sign 20.3 558.9 37.6 411.2 RF 0.70 0.64 0.41 0.85
# punctuation 0.7 89.9 27.5 24.5 SVM 0.66 0.64 0.41 0.85
ellipsis ending? 0.8 52.2 2.9 23.4 Specificity MLP 0.66 0.63 0.50 0.81
NB 0.60 0.58 0.26 0.81
# hashtags 0.1 0.2 3.3 1.6
GB 0.69 0.63 0.26 0.84
# image link 9.7 16.0 2.6 23.4
RF 0.92 0.84 0.75 0.81
# links 6.5 27.9 1.0 22.7
SVM 0.91 0.84 0.74 0.82
# YouTube link 1.0 6.1 1.0 2.3 AUC MLP 0.86 0.80 0.65 0.79
# emoticons 0.1 0.5 0.1 0 NB 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.76
GB 0.90 0.83 0.73 0.81
Table IV: χ2 Test Scores for Metadata Features
Table V: Performance of ML Models

unit (ReLu) activation function. Default parameters were

used for NB and GB models.
To assess performance, we designated a positive and
negative class for each problem. Naturally, Joy, Love
and Trust are the positive classes. In Anticipation vs.
Surprise, we designated Surprise as negative because
tweets from this class contained more unigrams with
commonly understood negative connotations compared
to Anticipation. Based on the designation of positive
and negative classes, we calculated the true positives
(TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and
false negatives (FN) for each binary problem. Accuracy,
sensitivity, and specificity are defined in Equation (1).
Area under the ROC Curve (AUC) is used to assess the
trade off between sensitivity and specificity.
TP + TN
Accuracy =
TP + FP + TN + FN
TP
Sensitivity =
TP + FN
TN
Specif icity =
TN + FP
V. R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
We evaluated the performance of ML models using
a 75 − 25 train/test split of the data. Each model was
trained using a combination of TF-IDF, unigrams and
problem-specific metadata as discussed in Section III.
Table V shows the sensitivity and specificity of the five
classifiers. For each problem and metric, the maximum
value is highlighted. The table shows that either the
Random Forest or the SVM classifiers show the best
accuracy for all the four classification problems, and the
difference in the performance is statistically insignificant
between these two models. In terms of sensitivity, SVMs
and Naive Bayes models outperform the others. These
models are biased towards predicting true positives more
accurately as reflected in their lower specificity scores.
On the other hand, the Random Forest model shows
a balance between sensitivity and specificity for most
problems. The emotions of Love and Hate are highly po-
larized resulting in a clear separation. On the other hand,
it appears that Anticipation and Surprise are much closer
to each other on a spectrum of emotions in practice
even though theoretically they are on the opposite ends
of the axis on Plutchik’s wheel. Overall, our classifiers
were successful in differentiating between the pairs of
emotions in all the four classification problems. The
maximum accuracy was around 87%. SVMs recorded
(1) reasonable sensitivity, although it was not the best model
in terms of sensitivity for all problems. Generally, SVMs
and RF were better than MLP for sensitivity, but MLP
performed better in two problems in terms of specificity.
We also assessed the relative importance of the dif-
ferent features based on the Random Forest, summa-
rized in Table VI. We note that the χ2 test scores
indicate whether a particular feature is discriminatory in
a problem or not. Importance analysis reveals that around
60−70% of the discriminatory power lies in the linguis-
tic features, that is, TF-IDF combined with unigrams.
Metadata features show around 30 − 40% discriminatory
strength and the highest power was concentrated in the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Politecnica de Madrid. Downloaded on September 07,2022 at 12:57:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 sentiment scores plus the total number of words and rifice the accuracy of some for the others [17, 7, 2].
characters in a tweet. We alleviate this issue by formulating multiple binary
problems, each problem consisting of a pair of polar
L J A T
Feature vs vs vs vs opposite emotions on the axes of Plutchik’s wheel.
H S S D Although each binary classification is similar in spirit to
# total words 0.02 - 0.03 0.02 detecting positive/negative sentiment, this scheme allows
# unique words 0.02 - 0.03 0.03
TextBlob score 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.03 us to learn about the specific emotions such as love,
Vader score 0.16 0.12 0.02 0.06 joy, anticipation and trust that render a tweet positive,
#characters 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05 or those such as hate, sadness, disgust and surprise that
#stop-words 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03
# all capitals 0.01 0.02 0.02 -
make a tweet negative, with high accuracy. Finally, many
#‘@’ counts 0.01 0.01 - 0.01 of the above works consider a single machine learning
#exclamatory 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 model, whereas, we compare the performance of five
# punctuation - 0.03 0.04 0.03 common models. Finally, our feature importance analysis
# mentions 0.01 0.01 - 0.01
Text Features 0.62 0.66 0.74 0.71 reveals how each group of features contributes to the
prediction performance.
Table VI: Feature Importance
VII. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE R ESEARCH
VI. R ELATED R ESEARCH This paper proposes a supervised machine learning
Most of the research on mining subjective knowledge approach to detect four pairs of polar opposite emotions
from tweets is concerned with extracting sentiment or inspired by the Plutchik’s wheel. The methodology trains
the polarity; very few works are concerned with emotion five supervised machine learning models on a combina-
mining. Although emotions surrounding specific events tion of linguistic and metadata features, and compares
such as the presidential election [23] or the Brazilian soc- their performance using sensitivity, specificity, accuracy,
cer league [6], or natural disasters such as the California and AUC. Random Forest and Support Vector Machine
Camp Fire [10] and the MERS outbreak [5] have been classifiers offer the best AUC, with Random Forest
mined, extracting them from a general corpus remains providing a more reasonable balance between sensitivity
relatively unaddressed. and specificity. Although every pair of emotions are
Many research works formulate multi-label classifi- polar opposites on the Plutchik’s wheel, identifying the
cation problems over a set of emotions; the chosen set alternating emotions of Love and Hate is the most
may be completely ad hoc, inspired by a psychological accurate, whereas differentiating between Anticipation
framework such as Ekman’s emotions or the Plutchik’s and Surprise is the least accurate. Importance analysis in-
wheel, or a combination of psychology and heuristics. dicates that linguistic and metadata features respectively
For example, Wang et. al. [22] annotated a data set of contribute 60% and 40% to the prediction.
2.5 million tweets based on hashtags related to emotion Our future research consists of mining emotions in
words, and classified them into seven emotions, six content shared over other social media platforms such
basic plus thankfulness. Their classification accuracy is as Reddit, Facebook, and Instagram. One of the biggest
around 60%, and this performance is further improved challenges in emotion mining is the availability of high-
by about 5% [9]. Jaishree et al [17] labeled tweets by quality labeled data sets for model training. Building
combining the scores from NRC word-level lexicon tool automated methods for data labeling to alleviate these
and emotion-based hashtags. Their problem considered concerns is also a topic of the future.
8 basic emotions of Plutchik’s wheel, however, their
R EFERENCES
multi-label classification problem was completely unable
to detect surprise, and registered low scores for fear. [1] K. Arunachalam. “Evaluation of Python Packages
A smaller set of 4 emotions is also used by some for Sentiment Analysis”, 2019 (last accessed
researchers [7, 19]. Although Mohammed et. al. [8] on October 19, 2019). https://www.linkedin.
formulate their problem based on Plutchik’s wheel, they com/pulse/evaluation-python-packages-sentiment-
ultimately boil it down to binary classification by using analysis-karthikeyan-arunachalam/.
the one vs. other method. [2] M. Bouazizi and T. Ohtsuki. “Sentiment Analy-
Generally, multi-label emotion classification suffers sis: From Binary to Multi-Class Classification: A
from either low accuracy for all classes [22] or sac- Pattern-Based Approach for Multi-Class Sentiment

Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Politecnica de Madrid. Downloaded on September 07,2022 at 12:57:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Analysis in Twitter”. In Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf.
on Communications, July 2016.
[3] L. Buitinck, G. Louppe, M. Blondel, F. Pedregosa,
A. Mueller, O. Grisel, V. Niculae, P. Prettenhofer,
A. Gramfort, J. Grobler, R. Layton, J. VanderPlas,
A. Joly, B. Holt, and Gaël Varoquaux. “API De-
sign for Machine Learning Software: Experiences
from the Scikit-learn project”. In Proc. of ECML
PKDD Workshop: Languages for Data Mining and
Machine Learning, pages 108–122, 2013.
[4] J. Clement. “Number of Monthly Active Twitter
Users Worldwide from 1st Quarter 2010 to 1st
Quarter 2019”, 2019 (last accessed on March 5,
2020). https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/.
[5] H. J. Do, C. Lim, Y. J. Kim, and H. Choi. “An-
alyzing Emotions in Twitter during a Crisis: A
Case Study of the 2015 Middle East Respiratory
Syndrome Outbreak in Korea”. In Proc. of Intl.
Conf. on Big Data and Smart Computing, pages
415–418, 2016.
[6] A. Esmin, R. De Oliveira Jr, and S. Matwin.
“Hierarchical Classification Approach to Emotion
Recognition in Twitter”. In Proc. of Intl. Conf.
on Machine Learning and Applications, volume 2,
pages 381–385, 2012.
[7] S. S. Ibraheim, S. S. Ismail, K. A. Bahansy,
and M. M. Aref. “Multi-Emotion Classification
Evaluation via Twitter”. In Proc. of Intl. Conf.
on Intelligent Computing and Information Systems,
pages 60–67, Cairo, Egypt, 2019.
[8] M. Jabreel and A. Moreno. “A Deep Learning-
based Approach for Multi-label Emotion Classi-
fication in Tweets”. Applied Sciences, 9(6):1123,
2019.
[9] O. Janssens, M. Slembrouck, S. Verstockt, S. V.
Hoecke, and R. V. de Walle. “Real-time Emotion
Classification of Tweets”. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on
Advances in Social Network Analysis and Mining,
pages 1430–1431, August 2013.
[10] N. H. Khun, T. T. Zin, M. Yokota, and H. Y. Thant.
“Emotion Analysis of Twitter Users on Natural
Disasters”. In Proc. of Global Conf. on Consumer
Electronics, Osaka, Japan, October 2019.
[11] T. Kim and K. Wurster. “Emoji 0.5.4”, Sep 11,
2019 (last accessed on March 5, 2020). https://
pypi.org/project/emoji/.
[12] R. Klinger et al. “An Analysis of Annotated Cor-
pora for Emotion Classification in Text”. In Proc. of
the Intl. Conf. on Computational Linguistics, pages
2104–2119, 2018.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Univ Politecnica de Madrid. Downloaded on September 07,2022 at 12:57:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[13] R. M. Ohashi. “From Sentiment Analysis to Emo-
tion Recognition: A NLP Story”, July 2019 (last
accessed on March 3, 2020). https://medium.com/
neuronio/bcc9d6ff61ae.
[14] G. W. Parrott. Emotions in Social Psychology:
Essential Readings. Psychology Press, 2001.
[15] A. Qadir and E. Riloff. “Bootstrapped Learning
of Emotion Hashtags# hashtags4you”. In Proc. of
Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjec-
tivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis, pages
2–11, 2013.
[16] A. Qadir and E. Riloff. “Learning Emotion In-
dicators from Tweets: Hashtags, Hashtag Patterns,
and Phrases”. In Proc. of the Conf. on Empirical
Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages
1203–1209, 2014.
[17] J. Ranganathan, N. Hedge, A. S. Irudayaraj, and
A. A. Tzacheva. “Automatic Detection of Emotions
in Twitter Data-A Scalable Decision Tree Classifi-
cation Method”. In Proc. of the RevOpID 2018
Workshop on Opinion Mining, Summarization and
Diversification, 2018.
[18] Plutchik Robert. Emotion: Theory, research, and
experience. vol. 1: Theories of emotion, 1980.
[19] F. M. Shah, A. S. Reyadh, A. I. Shaafi, and
F. T. Sithil. “Emotion Detection from Tweets
using AIT-2018 Dataset”. In Proc. of Intl. Conf,
on Advances in Electrical Engineering, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, September 2019.
[20] J. Suttles and N. Ide. “Distant Supervision for
Emotion Classification with Discrete Binary Val-
ues”. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Text
Processing and Computational Linguistics, pages
121–136. Springer, 2013.
[21] Chris Van Pelt and Alex Sorokin. Designing a
scalable crowdsourcing platform. In Proceedings of
the 2012 ACM SIGMOD International Conference
on Management of Data, pages 765–766, 2012.
[22] W. Wang, L. Chen, K. Thirunarayan, and A. P.
Sheth. “Harnessing Twitter “Big Data” for Au-
tomatic Emotion Identification”. In Proc. of Intl.
Conf. on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and Intl.
Conf. on Social Computing, pages 587–592, 2012.
[23] U. Yaqub, S. Chun, V. Atluri, and J. Vaidya.
“Sentiment-based Analysis of Tweets during the
US Presidential Election”. pages 1–10, 06 2017.
[24] L. Yue, W. Chen, X. Li, W. Zuo, and M. Yin. “A
Survey of Sentiment Analysis in Social Media”.
Knowledge and Information Systems, (60):617–
663, July 2018.