Deep learning-based profanity detection in social media: A survey


Abstract

The spread of toxic and profane language across online platforms has necessitated the development of advanced automated detection systems to maintain safe online environments. This survey comprehensively explores the progression of profanity language detection techniques, focusing on datasets, feature extraction methods, and model architectures. Through a thorough examination of key developments in the field, the study outlines the evolution of detection systems across four distinct phases. It offers a taxonomy of approaches that have shaped the current landscape. We review various high-performing models, highlighting their effectiveness in addressing challenges such as context understanding, multilingual data, and identifying subtle forms of toxicity. The paper further explores the strengths of these models, including their ability to capture long-range dependencies and nuanced features, while also discussing their limitations, such as computational efficiency and generalization across datasets. By analyzing the current state of toxic language detection and the latest advancements in feature extraction and modeling techniques, we provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners. Additionally, the paper outlines future research directions, emphasizing the importance of lightweight, adaptive models and real-time optimization techniques to enable scalable, practical deployment across diverse platforms and environments.
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].