Offensive Language and Hate Speech Detection with Deep Learning and Transfer Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxic online speech has become a crucial problem nowadays due to an exponential increase in the use of internet by people from different cultures and educational backgrounds. Differentiating if a text message belongs to hate speech and offensive language is a key challenge in automatic detection of toxic text content. In this paper, we propose an approach to automatically classify tweets into three classes: Hate, offensive and Neither. Using public tweet data set, we first perform experiments to build BI-LSTM models from empty embedding and then we also try the same neural network architecture with pre-trained Glove embedding. Next, we introduce a transfer learning approach for hate speech detection using an existing pre-trained language model BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers), DistilBert (Distilled version of BERT) and GPT-2 (Generative Pre-Training). We perform hyper parameters tuning analysis of our best model (BI-LSTM) considering different neural network architectures, learn-ratings and normalization methods etc. After tuning the model and with the best combination of parameters, we achieve over 92 percent accuracy upon evaluating it on test data. We also create a class module which contains main functionality including text classification, sentiment checking and text data augmentation. This model could serve as an intermediate module between user and Twitter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".