Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Before the Outrage: Challenges and Advances in Predicting Online Antisocial Behavior

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the fragmented research on predicting antisocial behavior online can be unified under a five-category taxonomy—early harm detection, harm emergence, harm propagation, behavioral risk, and proactive…

desk verdict A competent, clearly written survey whose five-category taxonomy is genuinely useful, but the claim that the taxonomy is grounded in the review is undercut by the inclusion criteria being written in the taxonomy's own terms. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20614 v1 pith:2RIFYF2G submitted 2025-07-28 cs.CL

Anaïs Ollagnier (CRISAM , CNRS , MARIANNE) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords antisocialbehaviorpredictionsystematicliteraturereviewhatespeechforecastingearlyharmdetectionpropagationbehavioralriskproactivemoderationonlinetoxicity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ASB prediction, the computational modeling of future harmful behavior rather than detection of content already posted, is scattered across many task formulations. The paper sets out to unify this field with a taxonomy built on two dimensions, temporal orientation and operational purpose, yielding five task types: early harm detection, harm emergence prediction, harm propagation prediction, behavioral risk prediction, and proactive moderation support. It reviews 49 studies that fit its inclusion criteria and analyzes their tasks, features, models, and datasets, then lists open challenges such as English-only data, platform dependence, temporal drift, and missing benchmarks. A sympathetic reader would care because the taxonomy gives researchers a shared vocabulary for comparing methods and gives moderators a map of what can be forecast before harm unfolds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the taxonomy itself: a two-dimensional grid whose axes are temporal orientation (anticipating the emergence, escalation, or spread of harm) and operational purpose (supporting moderation, risk assessment, or intervention). The five categories are its cells, and the paper uses them as both the coding scheme for the literature review and the explanatory frame for comparing methods, features, and datasets. Secondary machinery includes the temporal-strategy distinction between ex-ante prediction and peeking strategies that use early interaction signals, along with the granularity levels (micro, meso, macro) adapted from information-cascade research.

What would settle it

Re-run the literature search with inclusion criteria that do not mention the five task categories and count how many peer-reviewed machine-learning studies predicting future harmful outcomes, such as coordinated harassment campaigns, moderator workload, or platform policy violations, fall outside all five labels; even one such study would show the taxonomy is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that predictive ASB work, despite different labels and platforms, falls into five recurring task types distinguished by when in the harm lifecycle the prediction sits and what operational job it does. Early harm detection flags harm from the first few messages; harm emergence prediction asks whether a currently civil interaction will become toxic; harm propagation prediction estimates how far and fast harmful content will spread; behavioral risk prediction scores whether a user will reoffend, migrate to extreme communities, or become a target; proactive moderation support evaluates content before publication or ranks it for moderator review. The paper further reports that these categories are unevenly populated, with early detection and emergence dominating while proactive moderation is least studied, and that task formulation splits along classification versus regression, ex-ante versus peeking temporal strategies, and micro-, meso-, or macro-level granularity.

Load-bearing premise

The taxonomy's five categories are fixed in advance by the review's inclusion criteria, so the review can only find studies that fit one of the five labels and cannot discover a genuinely new predictive task type.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can position any new prediction task in one of five categories, enabling direct comparison of methods that were previously labeled inconsistently.
  • The reported distribution of effort (27.7% early detection, 23.4% emergence, 19.1% propagation, 17.0% behavioral risk, 12.8% proactive moderation) identifies proactive moderation support as the least developed category and a likely target for new work.
  • Task design is strongly shaped by platform structure: Twitter suits propagation and emergence tasks, while threaded Reddit and Wikipedia discussions suit derailment and early-detection tasks, implying that cross-platform generalization cannot be assumed.
  • The heavy concentration of English-language corpora (over 83%) and the lack of standardized benchmarks mean that multilingual modeling and shared evaluation tasks are the clearest levers for field-wide progress.
  • Temporal framing matters for accuracy: peeking and progressive prediction strategies that use early interaction signals are gaining ground for multi-turn and cascade tasks, and temporal drift is an acknowledged source of performance decay.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy is used as an inclusion filter rather than a descriptive result, it will systematically miss task types it did not predefine, such as forecasting coordinated inauthentic behavior, moderator workload, or platform-level policy outcomes; future reviews should derive categories inductively before fixing them.
  • The two axes suggest a testable separation: content-rich ex-ante moderation tasks may continue to favor classical feature-based models, while propagation and progressive-peeking tasks with temporal structure should benefit most from sequence and graph models; a benchmark organized by taxonomy category could confirm this.
  • Platform safety teams could use the reported distribution to prioritize investment: early detection already has many methods, whereas proactive moderation support is both least studied and most directly actionable for prevention.
  • One direct extension would be a shared task with one dataset per category and a uniform temporal split, which would turn the taxonomy from a descriptive map into an evaluation standard.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a systematic literature review of computational work that predicts antisocial behavior (ASB) on social media. Its central contribution is a proposed taxonomy of five task types—early harm detection, harm emergence prediction, harm propagation prediction, behavioral risk prediction, and proactive moderation support—organized along two dimensions (temporal orientation and operational purpose). The review reports a PRISMA-style selection process that yields 49 included studies, and it synthesizes the literature by task type, modeling technique, feature family, dataset structure, and platform. It also discusses open challenges such as linguistic generalization, cross-platform transfer, temporal drift, interpretability, and human-in-the-loop moderation. The paper claims that the taxonomy is derived from and grounded in the systematic review, and that the resulting map of the field can guide future research.

Significance. If the taxonomy and synthesis are accepted, the paper would provide a useful organizing framework for a fragmented research area, and its tables and figures give a compact overview of tasks, features, venues, and platforms. The manuscript has notable strengths: it follows a recognizable systematic-review structure with explicit research questions and a PRISMA-style flow diagram; it includes a candid limitations section; and it discusses ethical considerations that are often omitted from technical surveys. The feature-use table (Table 4) and platform-task observations are potentially useful references for researchers entering the area. However, the central claim that the taxonomy is empirically derived is undermined by the review's own inclusion criteria, which presuppose the five categories. Because the taxonomy is the paper's main contribution and the basis for its descriptive statistics, this issue is load-bearing. The corpus-level transparency is also insufficient for a systematic review: the full list of included studies and the per-study coding are not provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3 vs. Section 2.2] The inclusion criteria are written in terms of the five taxonomy categories before the review is conducted. Section 3.3 states that included studies must 'explicitly aim to forecast one or more of the following: the early signals of harm, the emergence of antisocial behavior, its potential propagation, the behavioral risk posed by users, or outcomes relevant to proactive moderation.' These are exactly the five categories introduced in Section 2.2, and exclusion reason (c) in Figure 1 rejects studies 'not addressing a task relevant to the taxonomy used in the study.' Consequently, every included study is guaranteed to fit at least one of the five labels, and the distribution in Figure 4 is a direct consequence of the inclusion filter rather than evidence about the structure of the field. This contradicts the claim in Section 2.2 that the taxonomy is 'derived... grounded in a systematic review,' and it means the review cannot discover a sixth task type by construction. The authors should either re-run the selection with open coding and report inter-annotator agreement, or explicitly reframe the taxonomy as a proposed analytic framework and describe the review as a mapping exercise rather than an empirical derivation.
  2. [Section 3.4 and Section 8] The review is not independently verifiable. The manuscript does not provide the list of 49 included studies, the extraction spreadsheet, or the category assignments for individual papers, and Section 3.4 indicates that screening and annotation were performed without reporting dual review or inter-annotator agreement. Section 8 additionally states that the author 'supplemented automated searches with a curated archive of domain-relevant publications,' which introduces a non-reproducible selection component. For a systematic review, the corpus and coding scheme should be released as supplementary material so that readers can check the taxonomy assignments and replicate the PRISMA counts. This is not a cosmetic concern: the paper's descriptive claims (e.g., Figure 4, Table 4, Table 5) depend entirely on which papers were included and how they were coded.
  3. [Section 5.1 and Figure 4] The percentages in Figure 4 are not accompanied by a per-study mapping table, which makes it impossible to audit the category assignments. In addition, there are internal inconsistencies in the examples: Table 2 lists Hosseinmardi et al. [37] as Harm Emergence Prediction, while Section 5.1 illustrates ex-ante prediction with the Instagram cyberbullying example citing Hosseinmardi et al. [56]; reference [56] is the 2015 arXiv version of the same group's work. The authors should provide a supplementary table linking each included study to its taxonomy category, temporal strategy, granularity, feature families, and RQ2/RQ3 codes, and should reconcile duplicate and near-duplicate references.
  4. [Section 4.1, Figure 2] The exponential growth claim is not statistically supported. Figure 2 plots observed counts against y = exp(0.205t) for t = 1,...,12, but the manuscript reports no goodness-of-fit measure, no confidence interval, no residual analysis, and no justification for choosing an exponential model over a descriptive bar chart. The text concludes 'a clear and accelerating growth trajectory,' but with yearly counts between 1 and 9 and an unusual dip in 2022, the fitted curve may not be a meaningful summary. The authors should either report standard fit diagnostics (e.g., R-squared, RMSE, model comparison) or present the raw counts descriptively without an overlaid fitted curve.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'we derive a taxonomy grounded in a systematic review of recent literature (Section 4)' is misleading because Section 3.3 has already fixed the five categories as inclusion criteria; please rephrase to reflect the actual relationship between the taxonomy and the review.
  2. [Section 3.2] Google Scholar is not a reproducible search source because its ranking and coverage change over time; the authors should provide the exact query strings, search dates per database, and the version of any aggregator tool used, or drop Google Scholar from the database list.
  3. [Section 4.3, Figure 3] The Multiple Correspondence Analysis plot lacks details on preprocessing, the number of keywords considered, the threshold rationale, and the variance explained by the two displayed dimensions; without these, the cluster interpretation is difficult to evaluate.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: [38] and [71] are the same paper, and [59] and [63] are the same paper; these should be deduplicated and cited consistently.
  5. [Section 5.3] The claim that 'over half of the surveyed datasets exhibit conversational flow' is not backed by a count or by the table; please provide the underlying numbers or qualify the statement.
  6. [Table 3] The reference list in the ex-ante classification row includes a duplicated entry '[69, 69, 70]'; please clean up the citation list.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Inclusion criteria are written in terms of the five taxonomy categories, so Figure 4's distribution and the claimed empirical grounding of the taxonomy are guaranteed by the selection filter.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2, Section 3.3, Section 3.4, Figure 1, Figure 4]
    "Accordingly, we include only studies that employ binary or multi-class classification or regression techniques and explicitly aim to forecast one or more of the following: the early signals of harm, the emergence of antisocial behavior, its potential propagation, the behavioral risk posed by users, or outcomes relevant to proactive moderation and intervention strategies."

    Section 2.2 defines the taxonomy as exactly five categories: Early Harm Detection, Harm Emergence Prediction, Harm Propagation Prediction, Behavioral Risk Prediction, and Proactive Moderation Support, and claims it is 'grounded in a systematic review'. Section 3.3 then restricts inclusion to studies that 'explicitly aim to forecast' those same five outcome types, and Figure 1 lists rejection reason (c) as 'Not addressing a task relevant to the taxonomy used in the study'. Section 3.4 further states that each paper is annotated 'based on the taxonomy introduced in Section 2.2'.

full rationale

The survey contains substantial independent content: the synthesis of modeling techniques, dataset shapes, feature categories, and open challenges does not reduce to the taxonomy, and no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used. The circularity is localized to the central organizing claim that the five-category taxonomy was derived from, and is grounded in, the reviewed literature. Section 2.2 introduces the five categories before the review; Section 3.3's inclusion criteria enumerate the same five outcome types; Section 3.4 codes studies using that taxonomy; Figure 4 then presents the resulting distribution as the field's structure. This makes the taxonomy's completeness unfalsifiable by the 49-study corpus. The Section 8 note that the author supplemented searches with a 'curated archive' further weakens independent verification, but it is not itself circular. The score reflects partial circularity of the central taxonomic claim, not the whole survey.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The taxonomy relies on the reviewed literature being representative, on the ASB definition adopted from prior work, and on the author's curated supplement to the automated search. No invented entities are introduced. The only fitted number is the exponential trendline in Figure 2, which is illustrative and not load-bearing.

free parameters (1)
  • Exponential growth rate in Fig. 2 = 0.205
    Fitted to the annual publication count series shown in Figure 2; used only as an illustrative trendline, not in the taxonomy or any central claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The definition of antisocial behavior as personal harms, group-directed harms, and environmental disruptions is adopted from prior work.
    Section 2.1 bases the ASB umbrella on social psychology, platform policies, and computational social science citations; the taxonomy's scope depends on this definition.
  • domain assumption The automated search plus the author's curated archive captured the relevant literature.
    Section 3.1 describes keyword queries and Section 8 states the author supplemented automated searches with a curated archive; the review's coverage rests on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Inclusion criteria that require a concrete ML prediction task are the appropriate boundary between prediction and detection.
    Section 3.3 excludes studies without classification or regression forecasting, which shapes the 49-paper set and the taxonomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Before the Outrage: Challenges and Advances in Predicting Online Antisocial Behavior." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RIFYF2G

@misc{pith2026250720614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Before the Outrage: Challenges and Advances in Predicting Online Antisocial Behavior},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RIFYF2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20614}
}
read the original abstract

Antisocial behavior (ASB) on social media-including hate speech, harassment, and trolling-poses growing challenges for platform safety and societal wellbeing. While prior work has primarily focused on detecting harmful content after it appears, predictive approaches aim to forecast future harmful behaviors-such as hate speech propagation, conversation derailment, or user recidivism-before they fully unfold. Despite increasing interest, the field remains fragmented, lacking a unified taxonomy or clear synthesis of existing methods. This paper presents a systematic review of over 49 studies on ASB prediction, offering a structured taxonomy of five core task types: early harm detection, harm emergence prediction, harm propagation prediction, behavioral risk prediction, and proactive moderation support. We analyze how these tasks differ by temporal framing, prediction granularity, and operational goals. In addition, we examine trends in modeling techniques-from classical machine learning to pre-trained language models-and assess the influence of dataset characteristics on task feasibility and generalization. Our review highlights methodological challenges, such as dataset scarcity, temporal drift, and limited benchmarks, while outlining emerging research directions including multilingual modeling, cross-platform generalization, and human-in-the-loop systems. By organizing the field around a coherent framework, this survey aims to guide future work toward more robust and socially responsible ASB prediction.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    In: Kumar, R., Caverlee, J., Tong, H

    Hosseinmardi, H., Rafiq, R.I., Han, R., Lv, Q., Mishra, S.: Prediction of cyber- bullying incidents in a media-based social network. In: Kumar, R., Caverlee, J., Tong, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM 2016), pp. 186–

    work page 2016

  2. [56]

    Prediction of Cyberbullying Incidents on the Instagram Social Network

    Hosseinmardi, H., Mattson, S.A., Rafiq, R.I., Han, R., Lv, Q., Mishra, S.: Prediction of cyberbullying incidents on the instagram social network. CoRR abs/1508.06257 (2015) 1508.06257

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  3. [1]

    New Media Soc

    Kahn, R., Kellner, D.: New media and internet activism: From the ’battle of seattle’ to blogging. New Media Soc. 6(1), 87–95 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444804039908

    work page 2004

  4. [2]

    Journal of interactive marketing 21(3), 2–20 (2007)

    Brown, J., Broderick, A.J., Lee, N.: Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of interactive marketing 21(3), 2–20 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [3]

    Scientific Reports 4, 4938 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04938

    Quattrociocchi, W., Caldarelli, G., Scala, A.: Opinion dynamics on interact- ing networks: media competition and social influence. Scientific Reports 4, 4938 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04938

    work page doi:10.1038/srep04938 2014

  6. [4]

    Criado, J.I., Sandoval-Almaz´ an, R., Gil-Garc´ ıa, J.R.: Government innovation through social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(4), 319–326 (2013) https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.GIQ.2013.10.003

    work page 2013

  7. [5]

    Characterizing Engagement Dynamics across Topics on Facebook

    Etta, G., Sangiorgio, E., Marco, N.D., Avalle, M., Scala, A., Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W.: Characterizing engagement dynamics across topics on face- book. CoRR abs/2211.15988 (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2211. 15988 2211.15988

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211 2022

  8. [6]

    Cinelli, M., Morales, G.D.F., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., Starnini, M.: 25 The echo chamber effect on social media. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(9), 2023301118 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2023301118

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2023301118 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [7]

    CoRR abs/1607.01032 (2016) 1607.01032

    Vicario, M.D., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Quat- trociocchi, W.: Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on facebook. CoRR abs/1607.01032 (2016) 1607.01032

    2016 arXiv

  2. [8]

    In: Lee, C.P., Poltrock, S.E., Barkhuus, L., Borges, M., Kellogg, W.A

    Cheng, J., Bernstein, M.S., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Leskovec, J.: Any- one can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In: Lee, C.P., Poltrock, S.E., Barkhuus, L., Borges, M., Kellogg, W.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Comput...

    2017

  3. [9]

    In: Hopfgartner, F., Jaidka, K., Mayr, P., Jose, J.M., Breitsohl, J

    Quattrociocchi, A., Etta, G., Avalle, M., Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W.: Reliabil- ity of news and toxicity in twitter conversations. In: Hopfgartner, F., Jaidka, K., Mayr, P., Jose, J.M., Breitsohl, J. (eds.) Social Informatics - 13th International Conference, SocInfo 2022,...

    2022 doi

  4. [10]

    In: Leskovec, J., Grobelnik, M., Najork, M., Tang, J., Zia, L

    Saveski, M., Roy, B., Roy, D.: The structure of toxic conversations on twit- ter. In: Leskovec, J., Grobelnik, M., Najork, M., Tang, J., Zia, L. (eds.) WWW ’21: The Web Conference 2021, pp. 1086–1097. ACM / IW3C2, Virtual Event / Ljubljana, Slovenia (2021). https://doi.org/10....

    2021

  5. [11]

    In: Franklin, M., Chun, S.A

    Ollagnier, A., Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Harnessing bullying traces to enhance bul- lying participant role identification in multi-party chats. In: Franklin, M., Chun, S.A. (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth International Florida Artificial Intel- ligence Research Society C...

    2023 doi

  6. [12]

    Ollagnier, A., Cabrio, E., Villata, S.: Unsupervised fine-grained hate speech target community detection and characterisation on social media. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 13(1), 58 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/S13278-023-01061-4

    2023 doi

  7. [13]

    European Journal of Communication 33(2), 214–226 (2018) https://doi.org/10

    Hannan, J.: Trolling ourselves to death? social media and post-truth politics. European Journal of Communication 33(2), 214–226 (2018) https://doi.org/10. 1177/0267323118760323 https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760323

    2018 doi

  8. [14]

    In: Korhonen, A., Traum, D.R., M` arquez, L

    Chowdhury, A.G., Sawhney, R., Shah, R.R., Mahata, D.: #youtoo? detection of personal recollections of sexual harassment on social media. In: Korhonen, A., Traum, D.R., M` arquez, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ...

    2019 doi

  9. [15]

    Psychology of Men & Masculinity 20(3), 277–287 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000156

    Parent, M.C., Gobble, T.D., Rochlen, A.: Social media behavior, toxic masculin- ity, and depression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 20(3), 277–287 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000156 . Epub 2018 Apr 23

    2019 doi

  10. [17]

    Valensise, C.M., Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W.: The drivers of online polariza- tion: Fitting models to data. Inf. Sci. 642, 119152 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1016/J.INS.2023.119152

    2023

  11. [18]

    Poletto, F., Basile, V., Sanguinetti, M., Bosco, C., Patti, V.: Resources and benchmark corpora for hate speech detection: a systematic review. Lang. Resour. Evaluation 55(2), 477–523 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/S10579-020-09502-8

    2021 doi

  12. [19]

    Scientometrics 126(1), 157–179 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-020-03737-6

    Tontodimamma, A., Nissi, E., Sarra, A., Fontanella, L.: Thirty years of research into hate speech: topics of interest and their evolution. Scientometrics 126(1), 157–179 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-020-03737-6

    2021 doi

  13. [20]

    Neurocomputing 546, 126232 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUCOM.2023.126232

    Jahan, M.S., Oussalah, M.: A systematic review of hate speech automatic detec- tion using natural language processing. Neurocomputing 546, 126232 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUCOM.2023.126232

    2023

  14. [21]

    In: Zhu, F., Ooi, B.C., Miao, C

    Dahiya, S., Sharma, S., Sahnan, D., Goel, V., Chouzenoux, E., Elvira, V., Majum- dar, A., Bandhakavi, A., Chakraborty, T.: Would your tweet invoke hate on the fly? forecasting hate intensity of reply threads on twitter. In: Zhu, F., Ooi, B.C., Miao, C. (eds.) KDD ’21: The 27th...

    2021

  15. [22]

    Meng, Q., Suresh, T., Lee, R.K., Chakraborty, T.: Predicting hate intensity of twitter conversation threads. Knowl. Based Syst. 275, 110644 (2023) https://doi. org/10.1016/J.KNOSYS.2023.110644

    2023

  16. [23]

    CoRR abs/2306.12982 (2023) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2306.12982 2306.12982

    Altarawneh, E., Agrawal, A., Jenkin, M., Papagelis, M.: Conversation derailment forecasting with graph convolutional networks. CoRR abs/2306.12982 (2023) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2306.12982 2306.12982

    2023 doi arXiv

  17. [24]

    In: Lin, 27 Y., Cha, M., Quercia, D

    Yuan, J., Singh, M.P.: Conversation modeling to predict derailment. In: Lin, 27 Y., Cha, M., Quercia, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventeenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2023), pp. 926–935. AAAI Press, Limassol, Cyprus (2023). https://doi.org/...

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    In: Faggioli, G., Ferro, N., Joly, A., Maistro, M., Piroi, F

    Irani, D., Wrat, A., Amir, S.: Early detection of online hate speech spreaders with learned user representations. In: Faggioli, G., Ferro, N., Joly, A., Maistro, M., Piroi, F. (eds.) Proceedings of the Working Notes of CLEF 2021 - Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum. C...

    2021

  19. [26]

    Alkomah, F., Ma, X.: A literature review of textual hate speech detection methods and datasets. Inf. 13(6), 273 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3390/INFO13060273

    2022 doi

  20. [27]

    https://transparency.fb.com/policies/ community-standards/

    Meta: Facebook Community Standards. https://transparency.fb.com/policies/ community-standards/. (2022c) (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, 503–520 (2020)

    Gruzd, A., Mai, P., Vahedi, Z.: Studying anti-social behaviour on reddit with communalytic. The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods, 503–520 (2020)

    2020

  22. [29]

    Social Media + Society 9(3), 20563051231196874 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20563051231196874 https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196874

    Haythornthwaite, C.: Moderation, networks, and anti-social behavior online. Social Media + Society 9(3), 20563051231196874 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 20563051231196874 https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196874

    2023 doi

  23. [30]

    (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’14), pp

    Cheng, J., Adamic, L.A., Dow, P.A., Kleinberg, J.M., Leskovec, J.: Can cascades be predicted? In: Chung, C., Broder, A.Z., Shim, K., Suel, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 23rd International World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’14), pp. 925–936. ACM, Seoul, Republic of Korea (2014). ht...

    2014

  24. [31]

    In: Lim, E., Winslett, M., Sanderson, M., Fu, A.W., Sun, J., Culpepper, J.S., Lo, E., Ho, J.C., Donato, D., Agrawal, R., Zheng, Y., Castillo, C., Sun, A., Tseng, V.S., Li, C

    Cao, Q., Shen, H., Cen, K., Ouyang, W., Cheng, X.: Deephawkes: Bridging the gap between prediction and understanding of information cascades. In: Lim, E., Winslett, M., Sanderson, M., Fu, A.W., Sun, J., Culpepper, J.S., Lo, E., Ho, J.C., Donato, D., Agrawal, R., Zheng, Y., Cas...

    2017

  25. [32]

    Interna- tional Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)7(04), 5623–5628 (2020)

    Yatish, H., Swamy, S.: Recent trends in time series forecasting-a survey. Interna- tional Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)7(04), 5623–5628 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    ACM Comput

    Zhou, F., Xu, X., Trajcevski, G., Zhang, K.: A survey of information cascade analysis: Models, predictions, and recent advances. ACM Comput. Surv. 54(2), 27–12736 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3433000 28

    2022 doi

  27. [34]

    In: Cha, M., Mascolo, C., Sandvig, C

    Cheng, J., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, C., Leskovec, J.: Antisocial behavior in online discussion communities. In: Cha, M., Mascolo, C., Sandvig, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2015), pp. 61–70. AAAI Press, University of...

    2015

  28. [35]

    Technical report, Keele University, Department of Computer Science (2004)

    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Technical report, Keele University, Department of Computer Science (2004)

    2004

  29. [36]

    Bmj 339 (2009)

    Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. Bmj 339 (2009)

    2009

  30. [39]

    In: Zhou, Z., Wang, W., Kumar, R., Toivonen, H., Pei, J., Huang, J.Z., Wu, X

    Potha, N., Maragoudakis, M.: Cyberbullying detection using time series mod- eling. In: Zhou, Z., Wang, W., Kumar, R., Toivonen, H., Pei, J., Huang, J.Z., Wu, X. (eds.) 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Min- ing Workshops (ICDM Workshops 2014), pp. 373–382. IEEE Comput...

    2014 doi

  31. [40]

    In: Huang, Y., King, I., Liu, T., Steen, M

    Al-Merekhi, H.A., Kwak, H., Salminen, J., Jansen, B.J.: Are these com- ments triggering? predicting triggers of toxicity in online discussions. In: Huang, Y., King, I., Liu, T., Steen, M. (eds.) WWW ’20: The Web Con- ference 2020, Taipei, Taiwan, April 20–24, 2020, pp. 3033–30...

    2020

  32. [41]

    CoRR abs/2305.04927 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2305.04927 2305.04927

    Mubarak, H., Abdaljalil, S., Nassar, A., Alam, F.: Detecting and reasoning of deleted tweets before they are posted. CoRR abs/2305.04927 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2305.04927 2305.04927

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    In: Hong, J., Battiato, S., Esposito, C., Park, J.W., Przybylek, A

    Kim, D., Kim, T., Yang, J.: Early detection of online grooming with language models. In: Hong, J., Battiato, S., Esposito, C., Park, J.W., Przybylek, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 40th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2025), pp. 963–970. ACM, Catania Interna- tion...

    2025

  34. [43]

    IEEE Access 13, 55081–55093 (2025) https://doi.org/10

    Nonaka, K., Yoshida, M.: Zero-shot prediction of conversational derailment with large language models. IEEE Access 13, 55081–55093 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1109/ACCESS.2025.3554548

    2025

  35. [44]

    PhD thesis, IIIT-Delhi (2020)

    Makkar, S., Chakraborty, T.: Hate speech diffusion in twitter social media. PhD thesis, IIIT-Delhi (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    CoRR abs/2503.03005 (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503

    Alharthi, R., Alharthi, R., Shekhar, R., Jiang, A., Zubiaga, A.: Will I get hate speech predicting the volume of abusive replies before posting in social media. CoRR abs/2503.03005 (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503. 03005 2503.03005

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [46]

    An, J., Kwak, H., Lee, C.S., Jun, B., Ahn, Y.: Predicting anti-asian hateful users on twitter during COVID-19, 4655–4666 (2021) https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/ 2021.FINDINGS-EMNLP.398

    2021 doi

  38. [47]

    Heliyon 10(23) (2024)

    Khan, S., Abbasi, R.A., Sindhu, M.A., Arafat, S., Khattak, A.S., Daud, A., Mush- taq, M.: Predicting the victims of hate speech on microblogging platforms. Heliyon 10(23) (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2018), pp

    Talukder, S.R., Carbunar, B.: Abusniff: Automatic detection and defenses against abusive facebook friends. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2018), pp. 385–394. AAAI Press, Stanford, California, USA (2018). https://aaai.org/...

    2018

  40. [49]

    In: Leskovec, J., Grobelnik, M., Najork, M., Tang, J., Zia, L

    Bao, J., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Chandrasekharan, E., Jurgens, D.: Conversations gone alright: Quantifying and predicting prosocial outcomes in online conver- sations. In: Leskovec, J., Grobelnik, M., Najork, M., Tang, J., Zia, L. (eds.) WWW ’21: The Web Conference 2021, pp. 1134–1...

    2021

  41. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2022), pp

    Lambert, C., Rajagopal, A., Chandrasekharan, E.: Conversational resilience: Quantifying and predicting conversational outcomes following adverse events. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2022), pp. 548–559. AAAI Press...

    2022

  42. [51]

    In: Lin, Y., Mejova, Y., Cha, M

    Yu, X., Blanco, E., Hong, L.: Hate cannot drive out hate: Forecasting con- versation incivility following replies to hate speech. In: Lin, Y., Mejova, Y., Cha, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighteenth International AAAI Confer- ence on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2024), pp. 174...

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    30 In: Boldi, P., Welles, B.F., Kinder-Kurlanda, K., Wilson, C., Peters, I., Jr., W.M

    Chelmis, C., Yao, M.: Minority report: Cyberbullying prediction on instagram. 30 In: Boldi, P., Welles, B.F., Kinder-Kurlanda, K., Wilson, C., Peters, I., Jr., W.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Web Science (WebSci 2019), pp. 37–45. ACM, Boston, MA, USA (201...

    2019

  44. [53]

    CoRR abs/2111.04951 (2021) 2111.04951

    Han, S., Huang, H., Liu, J., Xiao, S.: American hate crime trends prediction with event extraction. CoRR abs/2111.04951 (2021) 2111.04951

    2021 arXiv

  45. [54]

    In: Carter, M., Fadel, K.J., Meservy, T.O., Armstrong, D.J., Deokar, A., Jensen, M.L

    Falade, T.C.C., Yousefi, N., Agarwal, N.: Toxicity prediction in reddit. In: Carter, M., Fadel, K.J., Meservy, T.O., Armstrong, D.J., Deokar, A., Jensen, M.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2024): Elevating Life Through Digital...

    2024

  46. [55]

    In: Laforest, F., Troncy, R., Simperl, E., Agarwal, D., Gionis, A., Herman, I., M´ edini, L

    Levy, S., Kraut, R.E., Yu, J.A., Altenburger, K.M., Wang, Y.: Understand- ing conflicts in online conversations. In: Laforest, F., Troncy, R., Simperl, E., Agarwal, D., Gionis, A., Herman, I., M´ edini, L. (eds.) WWW ’22: The ACM Web Conference 2022, Virtual Event, Lyon, Franc...

    2022

  47. [57]

    IAENG International Journal of Applied Mathematics 54(4) (2024)

    Liu, J., Jia, X., Wu, Y., Zhang, J., Huang, X.: From news to knowledge: Pre- dicting hate crime trends through event extraction from media content. IAENG International Journal of Applied Mathematics 54(4) (2024)

    2024

  48. [58]

    PNAS nexus 2(1), 281 (2023)

    Solovev, K., Pr¨ ollochs, N.: Moralized language predicts hate speech on social media. PNAS nexus 2(1), 281 (2023)

    2023

  49. [60]

    CoRR abs/1805.04661 (2018) 1805.04661

    Klubicka, F., Fern´ andez, R.: Examining a hate speech corpus for hate speech detection and popularity prediction. CoRR abs/1805.04661 (2018) 1805.04661

    2018 arXiv

  50. [61]

    In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2021), pp

    Masud, S., Dutta, S., Makkar, S., Jain, C., Goyal, V., Das, A., Chakraborty, T.: Hate is the new infodemic: A topic-aware modeling of hate speech diffusion on twitter. In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2021), pp. 504–515. IEEE,...

    2021

  51. [62]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS 2019), pp

    Mouheb, D., Abushamleh, M.H., Abushamleh, M.H., Aghbari, Z.A., Kamel, I.: 31 Real-time detection of cyberbullying in arabic twitter streams. In: Proceedings of the 10th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS 2019), pp. 1–5. IEEE, Canary ...

    2019

  52. [63]

    Sensors 23(10), 4788 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3390/S23104788

    L´ opez-Vizca´ ıno, M.F., N´ ovoa, F.J., Arti` eres, T., Cacheda, F.: Site agnostic approach to early detection of cyberbullying on social media networks. Sensors 23(10), 4788 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3390/S23104788

    2023 doi

  53. [64]

    Spann, B., Agarwal, N.: Predicting toxicity in reddit discussion threads. In: In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling & Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation (SBP-BRiMS 2023),,. (2023)

    2023

  54. [65]

    IEEE Trans

    Etta, G., Cinelli, M., Marco, N.D., Avalle, M., Panconesi, A., Quattrociocchi, W.: A topology-based approach for predicting toxic outcomes on twitter and youtube. IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 11(5), 4875–4885 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ TNSE.2024.3398219

    2024

  55. [66]

    CoRR abs/2404.14846 (2024) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2404.14846 2404.14846

    Tessa, B., Cima, L., Trujillo, A., Avvenuti, M., Cresci, S.: Beyond trial- and-error: Predicting user abandonment after a moderation intervention. CoRR abs/2404.14846 (2024) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2404.14846 2404.14846

    2024 doi

  56. [67]

    CoRR abs/2503.02191 (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.02191 2503.02191

    Imran, M.M., Zita, R., Copeland, R., Chatterjee, P., Rahman, R.R., Damevski, K.: Understanding and predicting derailment in toxic conversations on github. CoRR abs/2503.02191 (2025) https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2503.02191 2503.02191

    2025 doi arXiv

  57. [68]

    CoRR abs/2504.08905 (2025) https://doi

    Zhang, Y., McKeown, K., Muresan, S.: Forecasting communication derailments through conversation generation. CoRR abs/2504.08905 (2025) https://doi. org/10.48550/ARXIV.2504.08905 2504.08905

    2025 doi

  58. [69]

    In: Chiruzzo, L., Ritter, A., Wang, L

    Song, X., Perez, S.L., Yu, X., Blanco, E., Hong, L.: Echoes of discord: Fore- casting hater reactions to counterspeech. In: Chiruzzo, L., Ritter, A., Wang, L. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pp. 4892–4905. Association for Computati...

    2025 doi

  59. [70]

    In: An, J., Lin, Y., Mejova, Y., Mustafaraj, E., Kulshrestha, J., Weber, I

    Hickey, D., Fessler, D.M.T., Schmitz, M., Lerman, K., Burghardt, K.: The peri- patetic hater: Predicting movement among hate subreddits. In: An, J., Lin, Y., Mejova, Y., Mustafaraj, E., Kulshrestha, J., Weber, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Nineteenth International AAAI Conferen...

    2025 doi

  60. [71]

    CoRR abs/2009.10277 (2020) 2009.10277

    Kennedy, C.J., Bacon, G., Sahn, A., Vacano, C.: Constructing interval vari- ables via faceted rasch measurement and multitask deep learning: a hate speech application. CoRR abs/2009.10277 (2020) 2009.10277

    2020 arXiv

  61. [72]

    Information Processing & Management 59(4), 102998 (2022)

    Wu, X.-K., Zhao, T.-F., Lu, L., Chen, W.-N.: Predicting the hate: A gstm model based on covid-19 hate speech datasets. Information Processing & Management 59(4), 102998 (2022)

    2022

  62. [73]

    abs/2301.04248 (2023)

    Hebert, L., Golab, L., Cohen, R.: Predicting hateful discussions on reddit using graph transformer networks and communal context, vol. abs/2301.04248 (2023). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2301.04248 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.04248

    2023 doi arXiv

  63. [74]

    In: Mitkov, R., Angelova, G

    Gajo, P., Muti, A., Korre, K., Bernardini, S., Barr´ on-Cede˜ no, A.: On the identification and forecasting of hate speech in inceldom. In: Mitkov, R., Angelova, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, RANLP...

    2023

  64. [75]

    In: 2021 International Conference on Data Min- ing Workshops (ICDMW 2021), pp

    Lin, K., Lee, R.K., Gao, W., Peng, W.: Early prediction of hate speech propagation. In: 2021 International Conference on Data Min- ing Workshops (ICDMW 2021), pp. 967–974. IEEE, Auckland, New Zealand (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW53433.2021.00126 . https://doi.org/10.11...

    2021

  65. [76]

    Tsantarliotis, P., Pitoura, E., Tsaparas, P.: Defining and predicting troll vul- nerability in online social media. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 7(1), 26–12615 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/S13278-017-0445-2

    2017 doi

  66. [77]

    PeerJ Comput

    Yin, W., Zubiaga, A.: Towards generalisable hate speech detection: a review on obstacles and solutions. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 7, 598 (2021) https://doi.org/10. 7717/PEERJ-CS.598

    2021

  67. [78]

    Applied Sciences 10(12) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124180

    Florio, K., Basile, V., Polignano, M., Basile, P., Patti, V.: Time of your hate: The challenge of time in hate speech detection on social media. Applied Sciences 10(12) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/app10124180

    2020 doi

  68. [79]

    Mathew, B., Saha, P., Yimam, S.M., Biemann, C., Goyal, P., Mukherjee, A.: Hatexplain: A benchmark dataset for explainable hate speech detection. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence (AAAI 2021), Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative ...

    2021 doi

  69. [80]

    Official Journal of the European Union 59(6), 1–88 (2016)

    Council, E.: EU regulation 2016/679 general data protection regulation (gdpr). Official Journal of the European Union 59(6), 1–88 (2016)

    2016

  70. [81]

    In: Roberts, S.T., Tetreault, J., Prabhakaran, V., Waseem, Z

    Vidgen, B., Harris, A., Nguyen, D., Tromble, R., Hale, S., Margetts, H.: Chal- lenges and frontiers in abusive content detection. In: Roberts, S.T., Tetreault, J., Prabhakaran, V., Waseem, Z. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Work- shop on Abusive Language Online, pp. 80–93. Ass...

    2019 doi

  71. [82]

    In: Goldberg, Y., Kozareva, Z., Zhang, Y

    Kirk, H., Birhane, A., Vidgen, B., Derczynski, L.: Handling and present- ing harmful text in NLP research. In: Goldberg, Y., Kozareva, Z., Zhang, Y. (eds.) Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pp. 497–510. Association for Computational Linguis...

    2022 doi

  72. [192]

    https://doi.org/10

    IEEE Computer Society, San Francisco, CA, USA (2016). https://doi.org/10. 1109/ASONAM.2016.7752233 . https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2016.7752233

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.