SD-CVD corpus: Towards robust detection of fine-grained cyber-violence across Saudi dialects in online platforms


Abstract

This paper introduces SD-CVD, a large, balanced Saudi-dialect corpus for fine-grained detection of cyber-violence on social media. The dataset comprises 88,687 tweets spanning Najdi, Hijazi, Eastern, and Qassimi dialects and is annotated hierarchically across three levels: (i) benign vs. cyber-violent, (ii) cyberbullying vs. online hate speech (with benign split into positive/negative/neutral), and (iii) seven hate-speech subtypes (incitement to violence, gender, national, social-class, tribal, religious, and regional discrimination). Annotation followed detailed guidelines with double review and adjudication, yielding Fleiss’ κ > 0.89. We benchmark classical machine learning (TF–IDF n-grams) and deep learning (embedding-based) models. SVM achieved the best overall performance (Accuracy = 0.854, F1 = 0.853), followed closely by Logistic Regression (F1 = 0.849), while MLP and LSTM were the strongest deep models (F1 ≈ 0.83); CNN underperformed on context-dependent categories. Error analysis shows most confusions within benign subclasses (neutral vs. negative), whereas hate-subtypes such as regional, tribal, and social-class discrimination are reliably identified. The results confirm that carefully engineered lexical features remain highly competitive for Arabic dialectal text, and they establish robust baselines for future hybrid and transformer-based approaches. SD-CVD directly supports national digital-safety efforts by enabling more precise detection and monitoring of cyber-violence in Saudi online discourse.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].