Cited by 77Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMental Health via Writing

Cyberbullying Detection in Social Networks: A Comparison Between Machine Learning and Transfer Learning Approaches

Open access
Teng, Teoh Hwai, Varathan, Kasturi Dewi·2023·IEEE Access

Abstract

Information and Communication Technologies fueled social networking and facilitated communication. However, cyberbullying on the platform had detrimental ramifications. The user-dependent mechanisms like reporting, blocking, and removing bullying posts online is manual and ineffective. Bag-of-words text representation without metadata limited cyberbullying post text classification. This research developed an automatic system for cyberbullying detection with two approaches: Conventional Machine Learning and Transfer Learning. This research adopted AMiCA data encompassing significant amount of cyberbullying context and structured annotation process. Textual, sentiment and emotional, static and contextual word embeddings, psycholinguistics, term lists, and toxicity features were used in the conventional Machine Learning approach. This study was the first to use toxicity features to detect cyberbullying. This study is also the first to use the latest psycholinguistics features from the Linguistic Inquiry and Word (LIWC) 2022 tool, as well as Empath’s lexicon, to detect cyberbullying. The contextual embeddings of ggeluBert, tnBert, and DistilBert have alike performance, however DistilBert embeddings were elected for higher F-measure. Textual features, DistilBert embeddings, and toxicity features that struck new benchmark were the top three unique features when fed individually. The model’s performance was boosted to F-measure of 64.8% after feeding with a combination of textual, sentiment, DistilBert embeddings, psycholinguistics, and toxicity features to the Logistic Regression model that outperforms Linear SVC with faster training time and efficient handling of high-dimensionality features. Transfer Learning approach was by fine-tuning optimized version Pre-trained Language Models namely, DistilBert, DistilRoBerta, and Electra-small which were found to have speedier training computation than their base form. The fine-tuned DistilBert resulted with the highest F-measure of 72.42%, surpassing CML. Our research concluded that Transfer Learning was the best for uplifted performance and lesser effort as feature engineering and resampling was omitted.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2023.3275130

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 scarcity of quality cyberbullying datasets in languages with limited resources obstructs the development of effective detection models for local contexts.

    “Moreover, the scarcity of quality cyberbullying datasets in languages with limited resources obstructs the development of effective detection models for local contexts [155].”
  • Utilizing transfer learning and fine-tuning techniques demands extensive computational resources and time, along with abundant data to enhance the detection capabilities of models.

    “Utilizing transfer learning and fine-tuning techniques demands extensive computational resources and time, along with abundant data to enhance the detection capabilities of models [155].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 144 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. M. Ptaszynski, P. Lempa, F. Masui, Y. Kimura, R. Rzepka, K. Araki, M. Wroczynski, and G. Leliwa, ''"Brute-force sentence pattern extortion from harmful messages for cyberbullying detection,''' J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1075-1127, 2019.
  2. V. Nahar, X. Li, and C. Pang, ''An effective approach for cyberbullying detection,'' Commun. Inf. Sci. Manage. Eng., vol. 3, no. 5, p. 238, 2013.
  3. K. Shriniket, P. Vidyarthi, S. Udyavara, R. Manohar, and N. Shruthi, ''A time optimised model for cyberbullying detection,'' Int. Res. J. Mod- ernization Eng., Technol. Sci., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 808-815, 2022.
  4. K. Verma, T. Milosevic, K. Cortis, and B. Davis, ''Benchmark- ing language models for cyberbullying identification and classifica- tion from social-media texts,'' in Proc. 1st Workshop Lang. Tech- nol. Resour. Fair, Inclusive, Safe Soc. Within 13th Lang. Resour. Eval. Conf., Marseille, France, 2022, pp. 26-31. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2022.lateraisse-1.4
  5. W. N. Hamiza Wan Ali, M. Mohd, and F. Fauzi, ''Cyberbullying detec- tion: An overview,'' in Proc. Cyber Resilience Conf. (CRC), Nov. 2018, pp. 1-3.
  6. L. Cheng, J. Li, Y. N. Silva, D. L. Hall, and H. Liu, ''XBully: Cyberbully- ing detection within a multi-modal context,'' in Proc. 12th ACM Int. Conf. Web Search Data Mining, Jan. 2019, pp. 339-347.
  7. H. Sanchez and S. Kumar, ''Twitter bullying detection,'' in Proc. NSDI, vol. 12, 2011, p. 15.
  8. A. M. Schoene and N. Dethlefs, ''Unsupervised suicide note classifica- tion,'' in Proc. Workshop Issues Sentiment Discovery Opinion Mining Knowl. Discovery Data Mining (KDD), London, U.K., 2018, pp. 1-9.
  9. T. Tytko and M. C. Augstkalns. (2020). How Well Do We Know Ourselves? Identifying Suicide Markers in Online Communication: A Case Study of a Graduate Student's Writing. [Online]. Available: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/109011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teng, T. H., & Varathan, K. D.
Affiliations
University of Malaya (MY)
Venue
IEEE Access
Published
2023
Volume
11
Pages
55533-55560
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4382311624
Cited by
77
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 5
FWCI
7.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Impact Oriented Interdisciplinary Research Grant Universiti Malaya (IIRG001A-19SAH)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
cyberbullying detection, social networks, transfer learning, DistilBERT, psycholinguistic features, pre-trained language models, text classification, feature engineering

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