Cited by 91Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMental Health via Writing

Cyberbullying detection: advanced preprocessing techniques & deep learning architecture for Roman Urdu data

Open access
Dewani, Amirita, Memon, Mohsin Ali, Bhatti, Sania·2021·Journal of Big Data

Abstract

Social media have become a very viable medium for communication, collaboration, exchange of information, knowledge, and ideas. However, due to anonymity preservation, the incidents of hate speech and cyberbullying have been diversified across the globe. This intimidating problem has recently sought the attention of researchers and scholars worldwide and studies have been undertaken to formulate solution strategies for automatic detection of cyberaggression and hate speech, varying from machine learning models with vast features to more complex deep neural network models and different SN platforms. However, the existing research is directed towards mature languages and highlights a huge gap in newly embraced resource poor languages. One such language that has been recently adopted worldwide and more specifically by south Asian countries for communication on social media is Roman Urdu i-e Urdu language written using Roman scripting. To address this research gap, we have performed extensive preprocessing on Roman Urdu microtext. This typically involves formation of Roman Urdu slang- phrase dictionary and mapping slangs after tokenization. We have also eliminated cyberbullying domain specific stop words for dimensionality reduction of corpus. The unstructured data were further processed to handle encoded text formats and metadata/non-linguistic features. Furthermore, we performed extensive experiments by implementing RNN-LSTM, RNN-BiLSTM and CNN models varying epochs executions, model layers and tuning hyperparameters to analyze and uncover cyberbullying textual patterns in Roman Urdu. The efficiency and performance of models were evaluated using different metrics to present the comparative analysis. Results highlight that RNN-LSTM and RNN-BiLSTM performed best and achieved validation accuracy of 85.5 and 85% whereas F1 score was 0.7 and 0.67 respectively over aggression class.

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 · 10.1186/s40537-021-00550-7

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • Keras is a popular framework for cyberbullying detection.

    “However, Keras is also a popular framework [20,25,171,184] for cyberbullying detection since the framework is built to provide a simple interface for quick prototyping by building active neural networks that can work upon TensorFlow.”

    From A Review on Deep-Learning-Based Cyberbullying Detection (2023) · cites this paper as [184]

    The Experimental setup section says the authors implemented and trained their cyberbullying-detection models in Keras, supporting its use for that purpose. Our copy does not establish that Keras is popular for cyberbullying detection. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. [2]Dadvar M. Experts and machines united against cyberbullying [PhD thesis]. University of Twente. 2014.
  2. [14]E. C. Ates, E. Bostanci, and M. S. Guzel, Comparative Performance of Machine Learning Algorithms in Cyberbullying Detection: Using Turkish Language Preprocessing Techniques, arXiv Prepr. arXiv2101.12718, 2021.
  3. [17]Gómez-Adorno H, Bel-Enguix G, Sierra G, Sánchez O, Quezada D. A machine learning approach for detecting aggressive tweets in Spanish, In: IberEval@ SEPLN. 2018. pp. 102–107.
  4. [18]X. Bai, F. Merenda, C. Zaghi, T. Caselli, and M. Nissim, RuG at GermEval: Detecting Offensive Speech in German Social Media, in 14th Conference on Natural Language Processing KONVENS 2018, 2018, p. 63.
  5. [19]B. Birkeneder, J. Mitrovic, J. Niemeier, L. Teubert, and S. Handschuh, upInf—Offensive Language Detection in German Tweets, In: Proceedings of the GermEval 2018 Workshop, 2018, pp. 71–78.
  6. [20]J. M. Schneider, R. Roller, P. Bourgonje, S. Hegele, and G. Rehm, Towards the Automatic Classification of Offensive Language and Related Phenomena in German Tweets, In: 14th Conference on Natural Language Processing KONVENS 2018, 2018, p. 95.
  7. [21]H. Margono, X. Yi, and G. K. Raikundalia, Mining Indonesian cyber bullying patterns in social networks, In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Australasian Computer Science Conference-Volume 147, 2014, pp. 115–124.
  8. [24]A. Roy, P. Kapil, K. Basak, and A. Ekbal, An ensemble approach for aggression identification in english and hindi text, In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Trolling, Aggression and Cyberbullying (TRAC-2018), 2018, pp. 66–73.
  9. [25]Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/portal/content/deadline-extension-first-task-automatic-cyberbullying-detection-polish-language. Accessed 09 May 2019.
  10. [27]Talpur KR Yuhaniz SS Sjarif NNBA Ali B Cyberbullying detection in Roman Urdu language using lexicon based approach J Crit Rev 2020 7 16 834 848 10.31838/jcr.07.16.109 · DOI
  11. [33]W. Zaremba, I. Sutskever, and O. Vinyals, Recurrent neural network regularization, arXiv Prepr. arXiv1409.2329, 2014.
  12. [35]S. Minaee, E. Azimi, and A. Abdolrashidi, Deep-sentiment: Sentiment analysis using ensemble of cnn and bi-lstm models, arXiv Prepr. arXiv1904.04206, 2019.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dewani, A., Memon, M. A., & Bhatti, S.
Affiliations
Mehran University of Engineering and Technology (PK)
Corresponding author
Dewani, Amirita
Venue
Journal of Big Data
Published
2021-12
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
160-160
ISSN
2196-1115 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200127519
Cited by
91
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal Of Big Data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore
  • Mehran University of Engineering and Technology
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, Roman Urdu, hate speech, slang dictionaries, text preprocessing, social media text, LSTM-RNN, BiLSTM, convolutional neural networks, low-resource languages, microtext

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