CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 352Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMisinformation and Its Impacts

The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes

Open access
Kiela, Douwe, Firooz, Hamed, Mohan, Aravind, Goswami, Vedanuj, Singh, Amanpreet, Ringshia, Pratik, Testuggine, Davide·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2005.04790arXiv 2005.04790
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This work proposes a new challenge set for multimodal classification, focusing on detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. It is constructed such that unimodal models struggle and only multimodal models can succeed: difficult examples ("benign confounders") are added to the dataset to make it hard to rely on unimodal signals. The task requires subtle reasoning, yet is straightforward to evaluate as a binary classification problem. We provide baseline performance numbers for unimodal models, as well as for multimodal models with various degrees of sophistication. We find that state-of-the-art methods perform poorly compared to humans (64.73% vs. 84.7% accuracy), illustrating the difficulty of the task and highlighting the challenge that this important problem poses to the community.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2005.04790

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The Hateful Memes dataset has shorter text sequences (128) than other datasets, which may cause input-level prompting to perform slightly worse on Hateful Memes, especially for the text-missing case.

    “For instance, the Hateful Memes dataset has shorter text sequences (i.e., 128) compared to other datasets, in which prompts may become more influential to the final performance if the prompt length is too long. This may cause ambiguity for the model to learn task-specific features, e.g., input-level prompting performs slightly worse on Hateful Memes, especially for the text-missing case in Table 1”

    From Multimodal Prompting with Missing Modalities for Visual Recognition (2023) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Input-level prompting further improves performance over attention-level prompting in most settings, except for one case on the Hateful Memes dataset.

    “Next, we show that input-level prompting further improves the performance in most settings, except for one case on the Hateful Memes dataset, in which this sensitivity analysis will be discussed in the following section.”

    From Multimodal Prompting with Missing Modalities for Visual Recognition (2023) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Hateful Memes dataset is constructed to fail models that rely on a single modality by adding challenging samples ('benign confounders').

    “Hateful Memes dataset is constructed to fail models that rely on a single modality by adding challenging samples ('benign confounders') to the dataset.”

    From Are Multimodal Transformers Robust to Missing Modality? (2022) · cites this paper as [17]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kiela, D., Firooz, H., Mohan, A., Goswami, V., Singh, A., Ringshia, P., & Testuggine, D.
Affiliations
Meta (United Kingdom) (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Volume
33
Pages
2611-2624
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2005.04790
arXiv
2005.04790
OpenAlex
W3023989664
Cited by
352
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • neural information processing systems
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 › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
hate speech detection, multimodal classification, benchmark dataset, human performance comparison, binary classification

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