REVIEW 3 cited by
Deep Learning Models for Multilingual Hate Speech Detection
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Hate speech detection is a challenging problem with most of the datasets available in only one language: English. In this paper, we conduct a large scale analysis of multilingual hate speech in 9 languages from 16 different sources. We observe that in low resource setting, simple models such as LASER embedding with logistic regression performs the best, while in high resource setting BERT based models perform better. In case of zero-shot classification, languages such as Italian and Portuguese achieve good results. Our proposed framework could be used as an efficient solution for low-resource languages. These models could also act as good baselines for future multilingual hate speech detection tasks. We have made our code and experimental settings public for other researchers at https://github.com/punyajoy/DE-LIMIT.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Hate Speech According to the Law: An Analysis for Effective Detection
A 100-instance expert-annotated dataset of prosecutable hate speech under Greek, Italian, and UK law is used to benchmark BERT models and LLMs, with legal annotations helping performance and LLM-generated silver data ...
-
ToxiLab: How Well Do Open-Source LLMs Generate Synthetic Toxicity Data?
Fine-tuned open-source LLMs, especially Mistral, generate synthetic toxic data that improves downstream hate speech detection classifiers, approaching GPT-4-level performance.
-
HateGPT: Unleashing GPT-3.5 Turbo to Combat Hate Speech on X
Zero-shot GPT-3.5 Turbo prompting achieves macro-F1 0.756 on HASOC 2024 English hate speech classification, ranking 5th.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.