Skip to main content

Weak Supervision and Machine Learning for Online Harassment Detection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Online Harassment

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

Abstract

Automated detection tools can enable both the study of online harassment and technology that mitigates its harm. Machine learning methods allow these tools to adapt and improve using data. Yet current well-established machine learning approaches require amounts of data that are often unmanageable by practitioners aiming to train harassment detectors. Emerging methods that learn models from weak supervision represent one important avenue to address this challenge. In contrast to the full supervision used in most traditional machine learning methods, weak supervision does not require annotators to label individual examples of the target concept. Instead, annotators provide approximate descriptions of the target concept, sucsh as rule-of-thumb indicators. In this chapter, we describe the weak supervision paradigm and some general principles that drive emerging methods. And we detail a weakly supervised method for detection of online harassment that uses key-phrase indicators as the form of weak supervision. This method considers multiple aspects of the online harassment phenomenon, using interplay between these aspects to bolster the weak supervision into a useful model. We describe experimental results demonstrating this approach on detecting harassment in social media data. Finally, we discuss the ongoing challenges for using machine learning methods to build harassment detectors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Studies have found evidence that certain identity groups do experience online harassment at different rates, especially when considering different forms of harassment Duggan (2017); Lenhart et al. (2016).

References

  • Ashktorab Z, Vitak J (2016) Designing cyberbullying mitigation and prevention solutions through participatory design with teenagers. In: Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 3895–3905

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellmore A, Calvin AJ, Xu JM, Zhu X (2015) The five W’s of bullying on Twitter: who, what, why, where, and when. Comput. Hum. Behav. 44:305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bifet A, Frank E (2010) Sentiment knowledge discovery in Twitter streaming data. In: Proceedings of the international conference on discovery science, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn J, Kwak H (2014) STFU NOOB!: predicting crowdsourced decisions on toxic behavior in online games. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web, ACM, WWW ’14, pp 877–888. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566486.2567987. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2566486.2567987

  • Blum A, Mitchell T (1998) Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In: Proceedings of the conference on computational learning theory, ACM, pp 92–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunescu RC, Mooney R (2007) Learning to extract relations from the web using minimal supervision. Proc. Ann. Meet. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 45:576–583

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen LC, Fidler S, Yuille AL, Urtasun R (2014) Beat the mturkers: automatic image labeling from weak 3D supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 3198–3205

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Zhou Y, Zhu S, Xu H (2012) Detecting offensive language in social media to protect adolescent online safety. In: Proceedings of the international conference on social computing, pp 71–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Dadvar M, de Jong F, Ordelman R, Trieschnigg D (2012) Improved cyberbullying detection using gender information. In: Dutch-Belgian information retrieval workshop, pp 23–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinakar K, Reichart R, Lieberman H (2011) Modeling the detection of textual cyberbullying. In: ICWSM workshop on social mobile web

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditch the Label (2013) The annual cyberbullying survey. http://www.ditchthelabelorg/

  • Djuric N, Zhou J, Morris R, Grbovic M, Radosavljevic V, Bhamidipati N (2015) Hate speech detection with comment embeddings. In: International conference on world wide web, pp 29–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Duggan M (2017) Online harassment. Technical report, Pew Research Center

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern Y, Horng S, Sontag D (2016) Clinical tagging with joint probabilistic models. In: Proceedings of the conference on machine learning for healthcare, pp 209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann R, Zhang C, Ling X, Zettlemoyer L, Weld DS (2011) Knowledge-based weak supervision for information extraction of overlapping relations. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 541–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinmardi H, Ghasemianlangroodi A, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S (2014a) Towards understanding cyberbullying behavior in a semi-anonymous social network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM), pp 244–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinmardi H, Li S, Yang Z, Lv Q, Rafiq RI, Han R, Mishra S (2014b) A comparison of common users across Instagram and Ask.fm to better understand cyberbullying. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on big data and cloud computing

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinmardi H, Mattson SA, Rafiq RI, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S (2015a) Analyzing labeled cyberbullying incidents on the Instagram social network. In: International conference on social informatics, pp 49–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinmardi H, Mattson SA, Rafiq RI, Han R, Lv Q, Mishra S (2015b) Detection of cyberbullying incidents on the Instagram social network. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang Q, Singh VK (2014) Cyber bullying detection using social and textual analysis. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on socially-aware multimedia, pp 3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Koren Y, Bell R, Volinsky C (2009) Matrix factorization techniques for recommender systems. Computer 42(8):30–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnamurthy J, Mitchell TM (2012) Weakly supervised training of semantic parsers. In: Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 754–765

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavrenko V, Croft WB (2001) Relevance based language models. In: Proceedings of the international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, pp 120–127

    Google Scholar 

  • LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenhart A, Ybarra M, Zickurh K, Price-Feeney M (2016) Online harassment, digital abuse, and cyberstalking in america. Technical report, Data & Society Research Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Margono H, Yi X, Raikundalia GK (2014) Mining Indonesian cyber bullying patterns in social networks. In: Proceedings of the Australasian computer science conference, vol 147

    Google Scholar 

  • McGhee I, Bayzick J, Kontostathis A, Edwards L, McBride A, Jakubowski E (2011) Learning to identify internet sexual predation. Int J Electron Commer 15(3):103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz M, Bills S, Snow R, Jurafsky D (2009) Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the ACL and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1003–1011

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahar V, Li X, Pang C (2013) An effective approach for cyberbullying detection. Commun. Inf. Sci. Manag. Eng. 3(5):238–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigam K, McCallum A, Mitchell T (2006) Semi-supervised text classification using EM. Semi-Supervised Learning, pp 33–56

    Google Scholar 

  • NoSwearing (2016) List of swear words & curse words. http://wwwnoswearingcom/dictionary

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton DU, McKeown K, Rambow O, Macbeth J (2016) Using natural language processing and qualitative analysis to intervene in gang violence. arXiv:160908779

  • Ptaszynski M, Dybala P, Matsuba T, Masui F, Rzepka R, Araki K (2010) Machine learning and affect analysis against cyber-bullying. In: Linguistic and cognitive approaches to dialog agents symposium, pp 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisi E, Huang B (2017a) Co-trained ensemble models for weakly supervised cyberbullying detection. In: NIPS 2017 workshop on learning with limited labeled data

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisi E, Huang B (2017b) Cyberbullying detection with weakly supervised machine learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM international conference on social networks analysis and mining, pp 409–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramakrishnan N, Butler P, Self N, Khandpur R, Saraf P, Wang W, Cadena J, Vullikanti A, Korkmaz G, Kuhlman C, Marathe A, Zhao L, Ting H, Huang B, Srinivasan A, Trinh K, Getoor L, Katz G, Doyle A, Ackermann C, Zavorin I, Ford J, Summers K, Fayed Y, Arredondo J, Gupta D, Mares D (2014) ‘Beating the news’ with EMBERS: forecasting civil unrest using open source indicators. In: ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 1799–1808

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratner AJ, De Sa CM, Wu S, Selsam D, Ré C (2016) Data programming: creating large training sets, quickly. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 29:3567–3575

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravi S, Diao Q (2015) Large scale distributed semi-supervised learning using streaming approximation. arXiv:151201752

  • Reynolds K, Kontostathis A, Edwards L (2011) Using machine learning to detect cyberbullying. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning and applications and workshops (ICMLA), vol 2. pp 241–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedel S, Yao L, McCallum A (2010) Modeling relations and their mentions without labeled text. In: Joint European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases. Springer, pp 148–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin J, Wu S, Wang F, De Sa C, Zhang C, Ré C (2015) Incremental knowledge base construction using DeepDive. Proc VLDB Endow 8(11):1310–1321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva TH, de Melo PO, Almeida JM, Salles J, Loureiro AA (2013) A picture of Instagram is worth more than a thousand words: workload characterization and application. DCOSS, pp 123–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinders C (2017) Toxicity and tone are not the same thing: analyzing the new Google API on toxicity, PerspectiveAPI. https://medium.com/@carolinesinders/toxicity-and-tone-are-not-the-same-thing-analyzing-the-new-google-api-on-toxicity-perspectiveapi-14abe4e728b3. https://medium.com/@carolinesinders/toxicity-and-tone-are-not-the-same-thing-analyzing-the-new-google-api-on-toxicity-perspectiveapi-14abe4e728b3

  • Warner W, Hirschberg J (2012) Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. In: Workshop on language in social media, pp 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu J, Schwing AG, Urtasun R (2014) Tell me what you see and I will show you where it is. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 3190–3197

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao L, Riedel S, McCallum A (2010) Collective cross-document relation extraction without labelled data. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1013–1023

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin D, Xue Z, Hong L, Davison BD, Kontostathis A, Edwards L (2009) Detection of harassment on Web 2.0. Content Analysis in the WEB 20

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu J, Mao J, Yuille AL (2014) Learning from weakly supervised data by the expectation loss SVM (e-SVM) algorithm. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 1125–1133

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bert Huang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Huang, B., Raisi, E. (2018). Weak Supervision and Machine Learning for Online Harassment Detection. In: Golbeck, J. (eds) Online Harassment. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78583-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78583-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78582-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78583-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics