Comparison between Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches for the Detection of Toxic Comments on Social Networks
Source abstract
Abstract
The way we communicate has been revolutionised by the widespread use of social networks. Any kind of online message can reach anyone in the world almost instantly. The speed with which information spreads is undoubtedly the strength of social networks, but at the same time, any user of these platforms can see how toxic messages spread in parallel with likes, comments and ratings about any person or entity. In such cases, the victim feels even more helpless and defenceless as a result of the rapid spread. For this reason, we have implemented an automatic detector of toxic messages on social media. This allows us to stop toxicity in its tracks and protect victims. In particular, the aim of the survey is to demonstrate how traditional Machine Learning methods of Natural Language Processing (NLP) work on equal terms with Deep Learning methods represented by a Transformer architecture and characterised by a higher computational cost. In particular, the paper describes the results obtained by testing different supervised Machine Learning classifiers (Logistic Regression, Random Forest and Support Vector Machine) combined with two topic-modelling techniques of NLP, (Latent Semantic Analysis and Latent Dirichlet Allocation). A pre-trained Transformer named BERTweet was also tested. All models performed well in this task, so much so that values close to or above 90% were achieved in terms of the F1 score evaluation metric. The best result achieved by Transformer BERTweet, 91.40%, was therefore not impressive in this context, as the performance gains are too small compared to the computational overhead.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Advanced Malware Detection Techniques · Spam and Phishing Detection
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Intelligent Data Analysis Laboratory (IDAL), Department of Electronic Engineering, ETSE (Engineering School), Universitat de València (UV), Av. Universitat, sn, 46100 Burjassot, Spain
Allot Communications Spain SLU, C. José Echegaray, 8, 28232 Las Rozas de Madrid, Spain
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Impact of social networks and internet in adolescence: Strengths and weaknesses
2. Risch, J., and Krestel, R. (2020). Deep Learning-Based Approaches for Sentiment Analysis, Springer.
3. Modha, S., Mandl, T., Majumder, P., and Patel, D. (2019, January 12–15). Overview of the HASOC track at FIRE 2019: Hate Speech and Offensive Content Identification in Indo-European Languages. Proceedings of the 11th Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation—FIRE ’19, Kolkata, India.10.1145/3368567.3368584 ↗
4. Brassard-Gourdeau, E., and Khoury, R. (2019, January 1–2). Subversive Toxicity Detection using Sentiment Information. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online, Florence, Italy.10.18653/v1/W19-3501 ↗
5. Using Naïve Bayes Algorithm in detection of Hate Tweets
6. Hate is in the air! However, where? Introducing an algorithm to detect hate speech in digital microenvironments10.1186/s40163-018-0089-1 ↗
7. Supervised Classifiers to Identify Hate Speech on English and Spanish Tweets
8. Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., and Weber, I. (2017). Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language. arXiv.10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955 ↗
9. Venkit, P.N., and Wilson, S.K. (2021). Identification of Bias Against People with Disabilities in Sentiment Analysis and Toxicity Detection Models. arXiv.
10. Shtovba, S., Shtovba, O., and Petrychko, M. (2019, January 15–19). Detection of Social Network Toxic Comments with Usage of Syntactic Dependencies in the Sentences. Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computer Modeling and Intelligent Systems, CEUR Workshop 2353, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine.10.32782/cmis/2353-25 ↗
11. Qader, W.A., Ameen, M.M., and Ahmed, B.I. (2019, January 23–25). An Overview of Bag of Words;Importance, Implementation, Applications, and Challenges. Proceedings of the 2019 International Engineering Conference (IEC), Erbil, Iraq.10.1109/IEC47844.2019.8950616 ↗
12. Recent advances in feature selection and its applications10.1007/s10115-017-1059-8 ↗
13. Understanding Inverse Document Frequency: On Theoretical Arguments for IDF10.1108/00220410410560582 ↗
14. Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., and Dean, J. (2018). Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv.
15. Latent Semantic Analysis
16. Latent Dirichlet Allocation
17. Nguyen, D.Q., Vu, T., and Nguyen, A.T. (2020, January 16–20). BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English Tweets. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Online.10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-demos.2 ↗
18. Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. (2018). BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. arXiv.
19. Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levi, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., and Stoyanov, V. (2019). RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv.
20. Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., and Louppe, G. (2012). Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. arXiv.
21. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A.N., Kaiser, L., and Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention Is All You Need. arXiv.