Cited by 13Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionTopic ModelingText and Document Classification Technologies

LSHWE: Improving Similarity-Based Word Embedding with Locality Sensitive Hashing for Cyberbullying Detection

Zhao, Zehua, Gao, Min, Luo, Fengji, Zhang, Yi, Xiong, Qingyu·2020·2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)

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

Crossref · 10.1109/ijcnn48605.2020.9207640

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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