mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Probing Critical Learning Dynamics of PLMs for Hate Speech Detection

arXiv 2402.02144 ↗First posted 3 Feb 2024cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the widespread adoption, there is a lack of research into how various critical aspects of pretrained language models (PLMs) affect their performance in hate speech detection. Through five research questions, our findings and recommendations lay the groundwork for empirically investigating different aspects of PLMs' use in hate speech detection. We deep dive into comparing different pretrained models, evaluating their seed robustness, finetuning settings, and the impact of pretraining data collection time. Our analysis reveals early peaks for downstream tasks during pretraining, the limited benefit of employing a more recent pretraining corpus, and the significance of specific layers during finetuning. We further call into question the use of domain-specific models and highlight the need for dynamic datasets for benchmarking hate speech detection.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Feb 2024.

Builds on

28 of 44 references.

References · 28

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  5. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
  6. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  7. 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,734
  8. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
  9. 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 724
  10. 2019How to Fine-Tune BERT for Text Classification?cited by 409
  11. 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 403
  12. 2020BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English Tweetscited by 346
16 more
  1. 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 265
  2. 2020Learning from the Worst: Dynamically Generated Datasets to Improve Online Hate Detectioncited by 217
  3. 2019SemEval-2019 Task 6: Identifying and Categorizing Offensive Language in Social Media (OffensEval)cited by 206
  4. 2020HateBERT: Retraining BERT for Abusive Language Detection in Englishcited by 206
  5. 2017Deep Learning for Hate Speech Detection in Tweetscited by 180
  6. 2019Thieves on Sesame Street! Model Extraction of BERT-based APIscited by 136
  7. 2019How Does BERT Answer Questions? A Layer-Wise Analysis of Transformer Representationscited by 63
  8. 2022Measuring Causal Effects of Data Statistics on Language Model's `Factual' Predictionscited by 57
  9. 2018A Unified Deep Learning Architecture for Abuse Detectioncited by 37
  10. 2020What's so special about BERT's layers? A closer look at the NLP pipeline in monolingual and multilingual modelscited by 35
  11. 2023Robust Hate Speech Detection in Social Media: A Cross-Dataset Empirical Evaluationcited by 28
  12. 2022On the Transformation of Latent Space in Fine-Tuned NLP Modelscited by 19
  13. 2022Necessity and Sufficiency for Explaining Text Classifiers: A Case Study in Hate Speech Detectioncited by 18
  14. 2022Proactively Reducing the Hate Intensity of Online Posts via Hate Speech Normalizationcited by 17
  15. 2021Interpretable Multi-Modal Hate Speech Detectioncited by 10
  16. 2023Revisiting Hate Speech Benchmarks: From Data Curation to System Deploymentcited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

3 papers.