Emotion identification is a process of identifying the emotions automatically from text, speech or images. Emotion identification from textual conversations is a challenging problem due to absence of gestures, vocal intonation and facial expressions. It enables conversational agents, chat bots and messengers to detect and report the emotions to the user instantly for a healthy conversation by avoiding emotional cues and miscommunications. We have adopted a Seq2Seq deep neural network to identify the emotions present in the text sequences. Several layers namely embedding layer, encoding-decoding layer, softmax layer and a loss layer are used to map the sequences from textual conversations to the emotions namely Angry, Happy, Sad and Others. We have evaluated our approach on the EmoContext@SemEval2019 dataset and we have obtained the micro-averaged F1 scores as 0.595 and 0.6568 for the pre-evaluation dataset and final evaluation test set respectively. Our approach improved the base line score by 7% for final evaluation test set.

Offensive language identification (OLI) in user generated text is automatic detection of any profanity, insult, obscenity, racism or vulgarity that degrades an individual or a group. It is helpful for hate speech detection, flame detection and cyber bullying. Due to immense growth of accessibility to social media, OLI helps to avoid abuse and hurts. In this paper, we present deep and traditional machine learning approaches for OLI. In deep learning approach, we have used bi-directional LSTM with different attention mechanisms to build the models and in traditional machine learning, TF-IDF weighting schemes with classifiers namely Multinomial Naive Bayes and Support Vector Machines with Stochastic Gradient Descent optimizer are used for model building. The approaches are evaluated on the OffensEval@SemEval2019 dataset and our team SSN_NLP submitted runs for three tasks of OffensEval shared task. The best runs of SSN_NLP obtained the F1 scores as 0.53, 0.48, 0.3 and the accuracies as 0.63, 0.84 and 0.42 for the tasks A, B and C respectively. Our approaches improved the base line F1 scores by 12%, 26% and 14% for Task A, B and C respectively.