# Text or Image? What is More Important in Cross-Domain Generalization Capabilities of Hate Meme Detection Models?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04967 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04967/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2024.

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Toxic Memes: A Survey of Computational Perspectives on the Detection and Explanation of Meme Toxicities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07353/) (2024)
- [See-Saw Modality Balance: See Gradient, and Sew Impaired Vision-Language Balance to Mitigate Dominant Modality Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13834/) (2025)
- [Bye Bye Perspective API: Lessons for Building and Governing Measurement Infrastructure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.25580/) (2026)
- [Unveiling Covert Toxicity in Multimodal Data via Toxicity Association Graphs: A Graph-Based Metric and Interpretable Detection Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03268/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper delves into the formidable challenge of cross-domain generalization in multimodal hate meme detection, presenting compelling findings. We provide enough pieces of evidence supporting the hypothesis that only the textual component of hateful memes enables the existing multimodal classifier to generalize across different domains, while the image component proves highly sensitive to a specific training dataset. The evidence includes demonstrations showing that hate-text classifiers perform similarly to hate-meme classifiers in a zero-shot setting. Simultaneously, the introduction of captions generated from images of memes to the hate-meme classifier worsens performance by an average F1 of 0.02. Through blackbox explanations, we identify a substantial contribution of the text modality (average of 83%), which diminishes with the introduction of meme's image captions (52%). Additionally, our evaluation on a newly created confounder dataset reveals higher performance on text confounders as compared to image confounders with an average DeltaF1 of 0.18.