The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
BiCHAT: BiLSTM with deep CNN and hierarchical attention for hate speech detection
Open accessAbstract
Online social networks(OSNs) face the challenging problem of hate speech, which should be moderated for the growth of OSNs. The machine learning approaches dominate the existing set of approaches for hate speech detection. In this study, we introduce BiCHAT: a novel BiLSTM with deep CNN and Hierarchical ATtention-based deep learning model for tweet representation learning toward hate speech detection. The proposed model takes the tweets as input and passes through a BERT layer followed by an attention-aware deep convolutional layer. The convolutional encoded representation further passes through an attention-aware Bidirectional LSTM network. Finally, the model labels the tweet as hateful or normal through a softmax layer. The proposed model is trained and evaluated over the three benchmark datasets extracted from Twitter and outperforms the state-of-the-art (SOTA) (Khan et al., 2022; Roy et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2019) and baseline methods with an improvement of 8%,7% and 8% in terms of precision, recall, and f-score, respectively. BiCHAT also demonstrates good performance considering training and validation accuracy with an improvement of 5% and 9%, respectively. We also examined the impact of different constituting neural network components on the model. On analysis, we observed that the exclusion of the deep convolutional layer has the highest impact on the performance of the proposed model. We also investigated the efficacy of different embedding techniques, activation function, batch size, and optimization algorithms on the performance of the BiCHAT model.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Attention-Based Bi-LSTM (AB-LSTM) is also an effective neural network model for detecting cyberbullying on social media sites such as Twitter [115,121,122].”
From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [122]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionality
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.4546 · Cited by 24,533
Distributed Representations of Sentences and DocumentsPreprint
Le, Q. V., & Mikolov, T. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1405.4053 · Cited by 7,905
Hierarchical Attention Networks for Document Classification
Yang, Z., Yang, D., Dyer, C., He, X., Smola, A. J., & Hovy, E. H. (2016) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-1174 · Cited by 5,022
Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Language
Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., Macy, M., & Weber, I. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14955 · Cited by 2,610
Zhu, Y., Kiros, R., Zemel, R., Salakhutdinov, R., Urtasun, R., Torralba, A., & Fidler, S. (2015) · 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2015.11 · Cited by 2,264
Hateful Symbols or Hateful People? Predictive Features for Hate Speech Detection on Twitter
Talat, Z., & Hovy, D. (2016) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-2013 · Cited by 1,919
Deep Learning for Hate Speech Detection in Tweets
Badjatiya, P., Gupta, S., Gupta, M., & Varma, V. (2017) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3041021.3054223 · Cited by 1,253
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Kamal, A., Abulaish, M., 2019. An lstm-based deep learning approach for detecting self-deprecating sarcasm in textual data. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (ICON’ 19), Hyderabad, India, NLPAI. pp. 201–210.
- Yin, W., Kann, K., Yu, M., Schutze, H., 2017. Comparative study of cnn and rnn for natural language processing, in: arXiv:1702.01923v1, arXiv. pp. 1–7. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Study of CNN and Transfer Learning in Medical Imaging: Advantages, Challenges, Future Scope
Salehi, A. W., Khan, S., Gupta, G., Alabduallah, B. I., Almjally, A., Alsolai, H., Siddiqui, T., & Mellit, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075930 · Cited by 682
Self-citationU-Net-Based Models towards Optimal MR Brain Image Segmentation
Yousef, R., Khan, S., Gupta, G., Siddiqui, T., Albahlal, B. M., Alajlan, S. A., & Haq, M. A. (2023) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13091624 · Cited by 156
Self-citationLi, L., Fan, L., Atreja, S., & Hemphill, L. (2024) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3643829 · Cited by 139
A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection
Hasan, M. T., Hossain, M. A. E., Mukta, M. S. H., Akter, A., Ahmed, M., & Islam, S. (2023) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi15050179 · Cited by 103
“Attention-Based Bi-LSTM (AB-LSTM) is also an effective neural network model for detecting cyberbullying on social media sites such as Twitter [115,121,122].”
BackgroundHate speech detection in social media: Techniques, recent trends, and future challenges
Rawat, A., Kumar, S., & Samant, S. S. (2024) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Statistics · doi:10.1002/wics.1648 · Cited by 70
Metadata
- Authors
- Khan, S., Fazil, M., Sejwal, V. K., Alshara, M. A., Alotaibi, R. M., Kamal, A., & Baig, A. R.
- Affiliations
- Imam Mohammad ibn Saud Islamic University (SA)
- University of Limerick (IE)
- Ministry of Education (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Khan, Shakir
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences
- Published
- 2022-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 4335-4344
- ISSN
- 1319-1578 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4281251145
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 6.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- hate speech detection, Bichat, bidirectional LSTM, deep convolutional neural networks, hierarchical attention, BERT, Twitter, hyperparameter sensitivity analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
