Analysis of Tweets for Cyberbullying Detection
Abstract
Cyberbullying takes place online on gadgets like smartphones and computers. Cyberbullying can occur through social media platforms. This paper presents a real-time cyber-bullying detection system for Twitter using Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML). The system is trained on a dataset of cyberbullying tweets using several ML algorithms and their performance is compared. Random Forest was found to provide the best results after tuning. To achieve real-time analysis, Selenium was used to scrape tweets from a given Twitter account and store the timestamp of the already checked tweets. Additionally, an image captioning model was employed to generate descriptions for images posted on the account and compare them with user-written captions to filter out spam tweets. The proposed work aims to prevent cyberbullying and provides a valuable tool for online platforms to detect and remove harmful content. The results of this study have shown that the selection of appropriate ML algorithms and preprocessing techniques significantly impact the performance of cyberbullying detection on Twitter. Our model sheds light on the appropriateness of different ML algorithms for the detection of cyberbullying.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 review identified weaknesses of machine learning classifiers in cyberbullying detection, including lack of automatic feature extraction, inability to perform real-time detection, and difficulty processing large volumes of data.
“The review identified weaknesses of machine learning classifiers in cyberbullying detection, including the lack of automatic feature extraction methods, inability to perform real-time detection, and difficulty processing large volumes of data [95,122,123].”
From Cyberbullying detection: Exploring datasets, technologies, and approaches on social media platforms (2026) · cites this paper as [122]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 9 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Mathur, S. A., Isarka, S., Dharmasivam, B., & C. D., J.
- Affiliations
- National Institute of Technology Karnataka (IN)
- National Institute of Technology Karnataka,Department of Information Technology,Surathkal,Karnataka,India,575025
- Venue
- 2023 Third International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communication (ICSCCC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2023-05-26
- Pages
- 269-274
- OpenAlex
- W4384345401
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communications (ICSCCC) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- cyberbullying detection, Twitter, harmful content removal, spam filtering, image captioning, random forest, machine learning algorithm comparison, social media abuse
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