LSHWE: Improving Similarity-Based Word Embedding with Locality Sensitive Hashing for Cyberbullying Detection
Abstract
Word embedding methods use low-dimensional vectors to represent words in the corpus. Such low-dimensional vectors can capture lexical semantics and greatly improve the cyberbullying detection performance. However, existing word embedding methods have a major limitation in cyberbullying detection task: they cannot represent well on "deliberately obfuscated words", which are used by users to replace bullying words in order to evade detection. These deliberately obfuscated words are often regarded as "rare words" with a little contextual information and are removed during preprocessing. In this paper, we propose a word embedding method called LSHWE to solve this limitation, which is based on an idea that deliberately obfuscated words have a high context similarity with their corresponding bullying words. LSHWE has two steps: firstly, it generates the nearest neighbor matrix according to the co-occurrence matrix and the nearest neighbor list obtained by Locality Sensitive Hashing (LSH); secondly, it uses an LSH-based autoencoder to learn word representations based on these two matrices. Especially, the reconstructed nearest neighbor matrix generated by the LSH-based autoencoder is used to make the representations of deliberately obfuscated words close to their corresponding bullying words. In order to improve the algorithm efficiency, LSHWE uses LSH to generate the nearest neighbor list and the reconstructed nearest neighbor list. Empirical experiments prove the effectiveness of LSHWE in cyberbullying detection, particularly on the "deliberately obfuscated words" problem. Moreover, LSHWE is highly efficient, it can represent tens of thousands of words in a few minutes on a typical single machine.
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?
Several studies used TensorFlow in their cyberbullying detection experiments.
“We find that several studies used TensorFlow [14,129,182,183] in their experiments, because the framework is flexible, easy to use and suits natural language processing tasks.”
From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [182]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 13
- Authors
- Zhao, Z., Gao, M., Luo, F., Zhang, Y., & Xiong, Q.
- Affiliations
- Chongqing University (CN)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-07
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 2161-4407 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3091338440
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text and Document Classification Technologies
- Keywords
- cyberbullying detection, word embeddings, locality-sensitive hashing, co-occurrence matrix, rare words, word meaning
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