Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Assessing Text Classification Methods for Cyberbullying Detection on Social Media Platforms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuned transformer classifiers, especially BERT, detect cyberbullying more accurately and efficiently than the generative GPT-2.0, making BERT a practical choice for real-time moderation.

desk verdict The paper's own tables contradict its headline numbers, and the TweetEval dataset is not a valid cyberbullying benchmark, so the central BERT 95% claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19928 v1 pith:CPT2Q227 submitted 2024-12-27 cs.CL cs.SI

Adamu Gaston Philipo , Doreen Sebastian Sarwatt , Jianguo Ding , Mahmoud Daneshmand , Huansheng Ning This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.SI
keywords cyberbullyingdetectiontextclassificationlargelanguagemodelsfine-tuningBERTRoBERTacomputationalefficiencysocialmedia
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

This paper compares five text-classification models—BERT, RoBERTa, XLNet, DistilBERT, and GPT-2.0—on three social media datasets to see which detects cyberbullying well enough for real-time use. The authors report that fine-tuned encoder models consistently surpass the generative GPT-2.0: BERT achieves about 95% accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 while keeping inference time near 0.05 seconds and memory around 35 MB, and RoBERTa reaches 96% accuracy on the largest dataset. DistilBERT is the lightest and fastest, and GPT-2.0 underperforms on accuracy while drawing more energy. The paper's practical conclusion is that fine-tuned encoders, with BERT as the balanced default, are better suited for real-time cyberbullying detection than generative models.

What carries the argument

The central object is a family of transformer-based language models—BERT, RoBERTa, XLNet, DistilBERT, and GPT-2.0—adapted as cyberbullying classifiers by fine-tuning a classification head on top of each pretrained model. The comparison runs every model over the same three datasets and evaluates nine metrics spanning accuracy, precision, recall, F1, error rate, inference time, memory, CPU/GPU usage, and energy. The argument's mechanism is the trade-off between a model's pretraining objective and its deployment cost: bidirectional encoder models capture harmful-text context better than the unidirectional decoder GPT-2.0, while distillation trades a little accuracy for large gains in speed and memory.

What would settle it

Re-run all five models on a single consistently labeled cyberbullying benchmark (for example, only hate/offensive versus non-harmful classes, or a unified dataset with the same label definition), and check whether BERT still reaches ~95% accuracy and GPT-2.0 still trails by 10 or more percentage points; if the gap narrows or reverses, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that adapting general text-classification transformers to cyberbullying detection works best with encoder-based models that are fine-tuned on the target data. BERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet lead the accuracy rankings, RoBERTa reaching 96% accuracy on TweetEval and BERT achieving 95% across metrics; GPT-2.0 trails behind with 74-85% accuracy. The paper further claims the choice among models is a trade-off: RoBERTa maximizes performance but consumes more memory, DistilBERT minimizes resource use and inference time but loses accuracy on some datasets, and BERT sits between them with 0.053-second inference, 35.28 MB RAM, and 0.000263 kWh energy, making it the recommended balanced option for real-time deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three datasets all measure cyberbullying in a comparable way, yet TweetEval's labels include emotion, religion, and spiritual categories that are not obviously cyberbullying, so if that dataset tests a different task the reported accuracies do not support the paper's conclusions about cyberbullying detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deploying BERT or RoBERTa as fine-tuned classifiers should give a social media platform 95–96% accuracy on cyberbullying detection with sub-0.1-second inference.
  • Generative models like GPT-2.0 are a poorer choice for text-classification moderation, since they trail on accuracy and consume more memory and energy on the tested benchmarks.
  • DistilBERT is the resource-efficient alternative, with inference times as low as 0.001 seconds and the lowest memory usage, at a modest accuracy cost.
  • The reported footprint of BERT (about 35 MB RAM and 0.4% CPU/GPU) supports running it as a continuous monitoring filter rather than a batch process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to rerun the five models on a single benchmark where every label is a cyberbullying category; TweetEval's emotion, religion, and spiritual classes are not obviously cyberbullying, so the rankings could change under a stricter task definition.
  • If the balance result generalizes, fine-tuned BERT-family encoders could serve as a first-pass moderation filter, with generative models used for synthetic data augmentation or explanation rather than classification.
  • The energy and memory numbers suggest DistilBERT could run on low-power edge devices, but that remains to be verified outside the specific hardware used in the paper.
  • Because the datasets differ in label sets and class distributions, per-platform threshold tuning would likely be needed in practice, which the paper does not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports an empirical benchmark of five transformer-based text classifiers—BERT, RoBERTa, XLNet, DistilBERT, and GPT-2.0—for cyberbullying detection. The authors use three datasets (Kaggle, IEEE Data Port, and TweetEval), fine-tune the models with a uniform protocol, and evaluate accuracy, precision, recall, F1, error rate, inference time, RAM usage, CPU/GPU usage, and energy consumption. The headline conclusion is that BERT offers the best balance between predictive performance and computational efficiency, that RoBERTa is the strongest pure-performance model, that DistilBERT is the most resource-efficient, and that GPT-2.0 consistently underperforms the fine-tuned encoder models. The paper closes with recommendations for deploying lightweight models in real-time, resource-constrained settings and with a plan for future work on mitigation and multilingual detection.

Significance. If the empirical results were reliable, the paper would be a useful practical comparison for deploying NLP models in cyberbullying moderation systems, particularly because it includes resource measurements (latency, memory, energy) that many detection-focused papers omit. The authors also provide a GitHub link for code and data, which supports reproducibility in principle, and they explicitly acknowledge in the conclusion that adapted models yield only moderate detection rates, a welcome note of caution. However, the significance is currently contingent on resolving major data-validity and internal-consistency problems; the TweetEval labeling issue and the non-reproducible abstract numbers mean the paper cannot yet be used as a reliable guide.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A, Table III, §III-B] TweetEval's class set (hate, offensive, emotion, religion, spiritual) is not a cyberbullying taxonomy and includes no non-cyberbullying class, yet the evaluation metrics in Equations (8)–(11) are defined for binary TP/TN cyberbullying detection. Table V reports five-class results for all datasets without specifying any one-vs-rest mapping or macro/micro aggregation rule. Because the abstract's 95% accuracy is taken from the TweetEval row, the paper's central quantitative claim is not supported by a valid cyberbullying benchmark. Please replace TweetEval with a genuine cyberbullying dataset, or explicitly define the multi-class mapping and aggregation and revise all claims and the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Abstract vs. Tables V–VI] The abstract's headline bundle (Accuracy 95%, Precision 95%, Recall 95%, F1 95%, Error Rate 5%, Inference Time 0.053 s, RAM 35.28 MB) does not correspond to any single configuration in the tables. In Table V, BERT's 95% metrics appear on TweetEval with an inference time of 0.095 s, while the 0.053 s inference time is the Kaggle result, and the 35.28 MB RAM value in Table VI is measured on Kaggle. The central stated result is therefore not reproducible from the reported data. Please report all numbers per dataset and, if a composite summary is intended, state the aggregation rule explicitly.
  3. [§V-F, §V-G, Tables V–VI] The inference-time and energy-efficiency discussions contradict their own tables. In §V-F, the text says 'RoBERTa achieves the fastest inference time at 0.029 seconds, followed closely by GPT-2 with 0.012 seconds,' but Table V lists GPT-2.0 at 0.012 s and RoBERTa at 0.029 s, so GPT-2.0 is in fact the faster model. In §V-G, DistilBERT's Kaggle energy consumption of 0.0211 kWh is described as 'efficient,' yet Table VI shows BERT at 0.000263 kWh and RoBERTa at 0.000028 kWh, with only GPT-2.0 (0.0365 kWh) consuming more than DistilBERT. These contradictions directly undermine the resource-efficiency conclusions.
  4. [§IV-C, §IV-D, Table VI] The implementation protocol is internally inconsistent and under-specified. Section IV-C states that all five classifiers used ReLU, cross-entropy loss, Adam with learning rate 0.0005, batch size 32, 10 epochs, and an 80:20 split, while Section IV-D claims the methods were applied 'exactly as described by their original authors'; these two statements cannot both be true for standard BERT/RoBERTa fine-tuning practice. Additionally, Table VI reports model memory that varies implausibly with dataset (e.g., DistilBERT at 1.09 MB on Kaggle, 1.20 MB on IEEE Data Port, and 100.96 MB on TweetEval), suggesting that the resource-usage measurement protocol needs to be reported and validated. Without this, the paper's 'balance' claim cannot be quantitatively assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-B, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) divides the total prediction time by N, which gives an average per-instance inference time, but the notation Tstart and Tend suggests a single instance; please clarify the definition.
  2. [§V-A(4), Conclusion] The text and conclusion state that RoBERTa achieved the highest accuracy across all datasets, but Table V shows DistilBERT highest on IEEE Data Port (87% vs. 82%); please reconcile the narrative with the table.
  3. [Table III] The TweetEval dataset is attributed to reference [20], a paper on GPT benchmarking, rather than to the actual TweetEval benchmark resource; the citation should be corrected.
  4. [Table V] The notation 'n = 5' is ambiguous because it could mean five classes or five samples; please specify that n denotes the number of classes and explain how the reported metrics aggregate over classes.
  5. [Introduction] The first sentence contains a typo ('HE Cyberbullying.1') that should read 'The Cyberbullying...' or 'Cyberbullying...'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical benchmark with no derivation chain; incidental self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical comparative evaluation, not a derivation. The central claims (BERT/RoBERTa accuracy, inference time, resource use) are measured quantities obtained by fine-tuning standard models on external datasets; no quantity is defined in terms of another, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The only self-citation, Philipo et al. [9], appears as background in the introduction and as a note in the contributions; it is not used to derive, justify, or constrain the experimental results, so it is not load-bearing. The serious concerns in the paper—that TweetEval's class labels (hate, offensive, emotion, religion, spiritual) do not form a coherent cyberbullying taxonomy and that the abstract's headline numbers do not match any single row of Table V—are validity and reproducibility problems, not circularity. The evaluation metrics (Eqs. 8-13) are standard and external to any self-citation. The paper therefore shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and derives no equations. Its claims rest on dataset validity, single-split evaluation, and unverified resource measurements. The chosen hyperparameters are free settings that could alter the ranking if changed.

free parameters (4)
  • learning_rate = 0.0005
    Chosen by hand in Section IV-C with no sensitivity analysis; affects all model comparisons.
  • batch_size = 32
    Fixed batch size in Section IV-C; no variation tested.
  • epochs = 10
    Fixed training epochs with early stopping in Section IV-C; early stopping threshold not specified.
  • train_test_split = 80:20
    Single split used for all models and datasets; no cross-validation or repeated splits.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three datasets are valid cyberbullying benchmarks with comparable class semantics across platforms.
    Section IV-A and Table III; TweetEval includes emotion, religion, and spiritual labels that are not clearly cyberbullying types.
  • domain assumption A single 80:20 split yields stable performance estimates without repeated runs.
    Section IV-C; no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported.
  • domain assumption Measured energy consumption, RAM, and CPU/GPU usage are accurate and comparable across models.
    Section V-G and Table VI; measurement methodology is not described, and numbers vary widely without error bars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing Text Classification Methods for Cyberbullying Detection on Social Media Platforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CPT2Q227

@misc{pith2026241219928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing Text Classification Methods for Cyberbullying Detection on Social Media Platforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CPT2Q227}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19928}
}
read the original abstract

Cyberbullying significantly contributes to mental health issues in communities by negatively impacting the psychology of victims. It is a prevalent problem on social media platforms, necessitating effective, real-time detection and monitoring systems to identify harmful messages. However, current cyberbullying detection systems face challenges related to performance, dataset quality, time efficiency, and computational costs. This research aims to conduct a comparative study by adapting and evaluating existing text classification techniques within the cyberbullying detection domain. The study specifically evaluates the effectiveness and performance of these techniques in identifying cyberbullying instances on social media platforms. It focuses on leveraging and assessing large language models, including BERT, RoBERTa, XLNet, DistilBERT, and GPT-2.0, for their suitability in this domain. The results show that BERT strikes a balance between performance, time efficiency, and computational resources: Accuracy of 95%, Precision of 95%, Recall of 95%, F1 Score of 95%, Error Rate of 5%, Inference Time of 0.053 seconds, RAM Usage of 35.28 MB, CPU/GPU Usage of 0.4%, and Energy Consumption of 0.000263 kWh. The findings demonstrate that generative AI models, while powerful, do not consistently outperform fine-tuned models on the tested benchmarks. However, state-of-the-art performance can still be achieved through strategic adaptation and fine-tuning of existing models for specific datasets and tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    OECD Publishing, 2024, accessed on 2024-05-14

    OECD, Mental health and digital environments. OECD Publishing, 2024, accessed on 2024-05-14. [On- line]. Available: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/ oecd-digital-economy-outlook-2024-volume-1 596e067d-en

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    The impact of bullying and cyberbullying on mental health: a systematic review,

    N. Agustiningsih, A. Yusuf, A. Ahsan, and Q. Fanani, “The impact of bullying and cyberbullying on mental health: a systematic review,” International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS), vol. 13, p. 513, 6 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Cyberbullying among adolescents and online information seeking about mental health,

    T. Gazibara, M. Cakic, J. Cakic, A. Grgurevic, and T. Pekmezovic, “Cyberbullying among adolescents and online information seeking about mental health,” PSYCHIATRIA DANUBINA, vol. 35, pp. 369–385, 10 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Cyberbullying: The silent epidemic of the digital age,

    N. R. Aisya, “Cyberbullying: The silent epidemic of the digital age,” Journal of World Science, vol. 3, pp. 691–697, 6 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Cyber - bullying detection: A comparative study of cl assification algorithms,

    P. Nuthalapati, S. A. Abbaraju, G. H. Varma, and S. Biswas, “Cyber - bullying detection: A comparative study of cl assification algorithms,” International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, vol. 13, pp. 1–12, 2 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cyberbullying de - tection approaches: A review,

    E. J. ALjohani, W. M. Yafooz, and A. Alsaeedi, “Cyberbullying de - tection approaches: A review,” in 2023 5th International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA) . IEEE, 8 2023, pp. 1310–1316

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cyberbullying detection using deep learning: A comparative stud y,

    M. Alkasassbeh, A. Almomani, A. Aldweesh, A. Al -Qerem, M. Alau - thman, K. Nahar, and B. Mago, “Cyberbullying detection using deep learning: A comparative stud y,” in 2024 2nd International Conference on Cyber Resilience (ICCR). IEEE, 2 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Towards comprehensive cyber - bullying detection: A dataset incorporating aggressive texts, repetition, peerness, and intent to harm,

    N. Ejaz, F. Razi, and S. Choudhury, “Towards comprehensive cyber - bullying detection: A dataset incorporating aggressive texts, repetition, peerness, and intent to harm,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 153, p. 108123, 4 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Cyberbullying detection: Exploring datasets, technologies, and ap - proaches on social media platforms,

    A. G. Philipo, D. S. Sarwatt, J. Ding, M. Daneshmand, and H. Ning, “Cyberbullying detection: Exploring datasets, technologies, and ap - proaches on social media platforms,” arXiv.org, vol. abs/2407.12154, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Enhancing cyberbullying detection: A multi-algorithmic approach,

    N. P. S. Pendela, K. A. Janet, A. M. R. Yadav, C. B. Subramanyam, S. Hariharan, and V. Kekreja, “Enhancing cyberbullying detection: A multi-algorithmic approach,” in Enhancing Cyberbullying Detection: A Multi-Algorithmic Approach, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  3. [11]

    Enhancing cyberbullying detection on social media using transformer models,

    W. Tapaopong, A. Charoenphon, J. Raksasri, and T. Samanchuen, “Enhancing cyberbullying detection on social media using transformer models,” TIMES-iCON, pp. 1–5, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Cyberbul - lying detection on social media using stacking ensemble learning and enhanced bert,

    A. Muneer, A. Alwadain, M. G. Ragab, and A. Alqushaibi, “Cyberbul - lying detection on social media using stacking ensemble learning and enhanced bert,” MDPI, vol. 14, pp. 467–467, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Improving cyberbullying detection with user interaction,

    S. Ge, L. Cheng, and H. Liu, “Improving cyberbullying detection with user interaction,” in Improving Cyberbullying Detection with User Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc, 2021, pp. 496– 506

    2021

  6. [14]

    A large-scale english multi- label twitter dataset for cyberbullying and online abuse detection,

    S. Salawu, J. Lumsden, and Y. He, “A large-scale english multi- label twitter dataset for cyberbullying and online abuse detection,” in Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021, pp. 146–156

    2021

  7. [15]

    Generalisation of cyberbullying detection,

    M.-A. Larochelle and R. Khoury, “Generalisation of cyberbullying detection,” in IEEE Computer Society, 2020, pp. 296–300

    2020

  8. [16]

    A labeled dataset for investigating cyberbullying content patterns in instagram,

    M. E. Hamlett, G. Powell, Y. N. Silva, and D. L. Hall, “A labeled dataset for investigating cyberbullying content patterns in instagram,” in Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Socia l Media, vol. 16, 2022, pp. 1251–1258

    2022

  9. [17]

    Comparison of machine learning and deep learning models for detecting cyberbul - lying,

    K. A. Lo, C. Briant Joe, S. Philip, and Hidayaturrahman, “Comparison of machine learning and deep learning models for detecting cyberbul - lying,” in 2024 International Visualization, Informatics and Technology Conference (IVIT), 2024, pp. 138–144

    2024

  10. [18]

    Optimal online cyberbullying detection,

    D.-S. Zois, A. Kapodistria, M. Yao, and C. Chelmis, “Optimal online cyberbullying detection,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2018, pp. 2017 – 2021

    2018

  11. [19]

    Offensive language detection for low resource language using deep sequence model,

    A. A. Khan, M. H. Iqbal, S. Nisar, A. Ahmad, and W. Iqbal, “Offensive language detection for low resource language using deep sequence model,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems , vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 5210–5218, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Offensiveness, hate, emotion and GPT: Benchmarking GPT3.5 and GPT4 as classifiers on Twitter-specific datasets,

    N. Bauer, M. Preisig, and M. Volk, “Offensiveness, hate, emotion and GPT: Benchmarking GPT3.5 and GPT4 as classifiers on Twitter-specific datasets,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Threat, Aggression & Cyberbullying @ LREC-COLING-2024, R. Kumar, A. K. Ojha, S. Malmasi...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Deep learning algorithms for cyber-bulling detection in social media platforms,

    M. H. Obaida, S. M. Elkaffas, and S. K. Guirguis, “Deep learning algorithms for cyber-bulling detection in social media platforms,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 76 901–76 908, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    C yberbullying detection using machine learning and deep learning,

    A. Alabdulwahab, M. A. Haq, and M. Alshehri, “C yberbullying detection using machine learning and deep learning,” International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 14, no. 10, 2023. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA. 2023.0141045

    2023

  15. [23]

    Cyber bullying detection for hindi -english language using machine learning,

    N. Mehendale, K. Shah, C. Phadtare, and K. Rajpara, “Cyber bullying detection for hindi -english language using machine learning,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 01 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    An application to detect cyberbullying using machine learning and deep learning techniques,

    M. Raj, S. Singh, K. Solanki, and R. Selvanambi, “An application to detect cyberbullying using machine learning and deep learning techniques,” SN Computer Science, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 401, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-022-01308-5

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Cyberbullying detection using deep transfer learning,

    P. Roy and F. Mali, “Cyberbullying detection using deep transfer learning,” Complex and Intelligent Systems, vol. 8, 05 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Detecting hate speech with gpt-3,

    K.-L. Chiu, A. Collins, and R. Alexander, “Detecting hate speech with gpt-3,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.12407

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Cyber- bullying detection in social networks: Artificial intelligence approach,

    N. A. Azeez, S. O. Idiakose, C. J. Onyema, and C. V. D. Vyver, “Cyber- bullying detection in social networks: Artificial intelligence approach,” Journal of Cyber Security and Mobility, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 745 –774, Jun. 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Multilingual hate speech and offensive language detection of low resource languages,

    A. R. Gutha, N. Adarsh, A. Alekar, and D. Reddy, “Multilingual hate speech and offensive language detection of low resource languages,” in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 05 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Cyberbullying detection using pre-trained bert model,

    J. Yadav, D. Kumar, and D. Chauhan, “Cyberbullying detection using pre-trained bert model,” in 2020 International Conference on Electronics and Sustainable Communication Systems (ICESC) , 2020, pp. 1096 – 1100

    2020

  22. [30]

    Robertanet: Enhanced roberta transformer based model for cyberbullying detection with glove features,

    A. A. Jamjoom, H. Karamti, M. Umer, S. Alsubai, T.-H. Kim, and I. Ashraf, “Robertanet: Enhanced roberta transformer based model for cyberbullying detection with glove features,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 58 950–58 959, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    The use of a large language model for cyberbullying detection,

    B. Ogunleye and B. Dharmaraj, “The use of a large language model for cyberbullying detection,” Analytics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 694 –707,

  24. [32]

    Bias and cyberbullying detection and data generation using transformer artificial intelligence models and top large language models,

    Y. Kumar, K. Huang, A. Perez, G. Yang, J. J. Li, P. Morreale, D. Kruger, and R. Jiang, “Bias and cyberbullying detection and data generation using transformer artificial intelligence models and top large language models,” Electronics, vol. 13, no. 17, 2024. [Online]. Available...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Enhancing aggression detection using gpt-2 based data balancing technique,

    A. Shrivastava, R. Pupale, and P. Singh, “Enhancing aggression detection using gpt-2 based data balancing technique,” in 2021 5th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS) , 2021, pp. 1345–1350

    2021

  26. [34]

    Ammus : A survey of transformer-based pretrained models in natural language processing,

    K. S. Kalyan, A. Rajasekharan, and S. Sangeetha, “Ammus : A survey of transformer-based pretrained models in natural language processing,” 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Transformers:

    A. Chernyavskiy, D. I. Ilvovsky, and P. Nakov, “Transformers: ”the end of history” for nlp?” 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Comparison of large language and vision models on repre - sentative downstream tasks,

    H. Chen, “Comparison of large language and vision models on repre - sentative downstream tasks,” in 2023 International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision and Machine Learning (ICICML), 2023, pp. 307–311

    2023

  29. [37]

    Sosnet: A graph convolutional network approach to fine -grained cyberbullying detection,

    J. Wang, K. Fu, and C. -T. Lu, “Sosnet: A graph convolutional network approach to fine -grained cyberbullying detection,” in 2020 IEEE Inter - national Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2020, pp. 1699–1708

    2020

  30. [38]

    Bullytype: Impro ving and advancing cyber bullying types detection framework based on transformers approach,

    D. N. Ananthi, “Bullytype: Impro ving and advancing cyber bullying types detection framework based on transformers approach,” in Cyber Bullying Types Datasets . IEEE Dataport, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/bsdy-zw62 15 Adamu Gaston Philipo (d202361019@...

    2021 doi

  31. [2021]

    in Computer Science and Technology at the School of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing (USTB), Beijing, China

    He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Technology at the School of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing (USTB), Beijing, China. His current research interests include Cybersecurity, and Cyberbullying Detection. ...

    2009

  32. [2023]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2203/2/3/38

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2203/2/3/38

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.