Social Media Hate Speech Detection Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) characteristics have flexible and multifaceted potential in hate speech detection by deep learning models. Interpreting and explaining decisions made by complex artificial intelligence (AI) models to understand the decision-making process of these model were the aims of this research. As a part of this research study, two datasets were taken to demonstrate hate speech detection using XAI. Data preprocessing was performed to clean data of any inconsistencies, clean the text of the tweets, tokenize and lemmatize the text, etc. Categorical variables were also simplified in order to generate a clean dataset for training purposes. Exploratory data analysis was performed on the datasets to uncover various patterns and insights. Various pre-existing models were applied to the Google Jigsaw dataset such as decision trees, k-nearest neighbors, multinomial naïve Bayes, random forest, logistic regression, and long short-term memory (LSTM), among which LSTM achieved an accuracy of 97.6%. Explainable methods such as LIME (local interpretable model—agnostic explanations) were applied to the HateXplain dataset. Variants of BERT (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers) model such as BERT + ANN (artificial neural network) with an accuracy of 93.55% and BERT + MLP (multilayer perceptron) with an accuracy of 93.67% were created to achieve a good performance in terms of explainability using the ERASER (evaluating rationales and simple English reasoning) benchmark.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it