---

Toxic Terminator: Toxicity Classifier

A Machine Learning Model for Detecting Toxic Language

---

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Technical Specifications
3. Project Terms
4. Dataset Description
5. Code Explanation
   • 5.1 Importing Libraries
   • 5.2 Data Loading and Exploration
   • 5.3 Data Preprocessing
   • 5.4 Feature Extraction
   • 5.5 Model Building
   • 5.6 Model Evaluation
6. Model Evaluation Results
   • 6.1 Logistic Regression Results
   • 6.2 Support Vector Machine Results
7. Confusion Matrices
   • 7.1 Logistic Regression Confusion Matrix
   • 7.2 SVM Confusion Matrix
8. Analysis and Interpretation
9. Conclusion
10. References
11. Author Details

---

Introduction

The Toxic Terminator project aims to develop a machine learning model capable of detecting toxic language in text data. By leveraging natural language processing (NLP) techniques and classification algorithms, the project seeks to classify comments or texts as toxic or non-toxic. This report provides a detailed explanation of the code implementation in the Toxicity_Classifier.ipynb notebook, including all related datasets and methodologies used.

---

Technical Specifications

• Programming Language: Python 3.x
• Libraries and Frameworks:
  • Pandas: Data manipulation and analysis
  • NumPy: Numerical computing
  • Matplotlib & Seaborn: Data visualization
  • Scikit-learn: Machine learning library
  • NLTK & re: Natural language processing and regular expressions
• Algorithms Used:
  • Logistic Regression
  • Support Vector Machine (SVM)
• Dataset:
  • Name: Toxic Comment Classification Dataset
  • Source: Kaggle

---

Project Terms

• Toxic Language: Offensive, hateful, or harmful language.
• NLP (Natural Language Processing): A field of artificial intelligence that focuses on the interaction between computers and human language.
• Feature Extraction: The process of transforming raw data into numerical features suitable for modeling.
• TF-IDF (Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency): A statistical measure used to evaluate the importance of a word in a document.

---

Dataset Description

The dataset used in this project is the Toxic Comment Classification Dataset from Kaggle. It contains thousands of Wikipedia comments that have been labeled by human raters for toxic behavior. The types of toxicity are:

• Toxic
• Severe Toxic
• Obscene
• Threat
• Insult
• Identity Hate

For simplicity, this project focuses on a binary classification: toxic or non-toxic.

---

Code Explanation

The notebook Toxicity_Classifier.ipynb is structured into several key sections:

5.1 Importing Libraries

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
import re
import nltk
from nltk.corpus import stopwords
from nltk.stem import SnowballStemmer
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfVectorizer
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn import svm
from sklearn.metrics import classification_report, confusion_matrix, accuracy_score

Explanation:

• Pandas and NumPy: For data manipulation and numerical operations.
• Matplotlib and Seaborn: For data visualization.
• re and NLTK: For text preprocessing.
• Scikit-learn Modules: For feature extraction, model building, and evaluation.

Key Points:

• NLTK Stopwords: Used to remove common words that may not contribute to the model's predictive power.
• SnowballStemmer: Used for stemming words to their root form.

5.2 Data Loading and Exploration

# Load the dataset
df = pd.read_csv('train.csv')

# Display first few rows
df.head()

Explanation:

• The dataset is loaded into a Pandas DataFrame from a CSV file named train.csv.
• The head() function displays the first five rows for initial inspection.

Dataset Columns:

• id: Unique identifier for each comment.
• comment_text: The text of the comment.
• toxic, severe_toxic, obscene, threat, insult, identity_hate: Binary labels indicating the type of toxicity.

Data Exploration:

• Check for missing values.
• Analyze the distribution of toxic vs. non-toxic comments.

# Check for missing values
df.isnull().sum()

Result:

• No missing values in comment_text or label columns.

5.3 Data Preprocessing

Combining Labels:

# Create a 'toxic' column where any type of toxicity is marked as 1
df['toxic'] = df[['toxic', 'severe_toxic', 'obscene', 'threat', 'insult', 'identity_hate']].max(axis=1)

Explanation:

• Combines all toxicity labels into a single binary column toxic.
• If any of the toxicity labels are 1, toxic is set to 1.

Text Cleaning Function:

def clean_text(text):
    text = text.lower()
    text = re.sub(r'\[.*?\]', '', text)  # Remove text in brackets
    text = re.sub(r'http\S+', '', text)  # Remove URLs
    text = re.sub(r'[^a-zA-Z\s]', '', text)  # Remove punctuation
    text = re.sub(r'\s+', ' ', text)  # Remove extra whitespace
    return text

Explanation:

• Converts text to lowercase.
• Removes text within brackets, URLs, punctuation, and extra whitespace.

Applying the Cleaning Function:

df['clean_comment'] = df['comment_text'].apply(clean_text)

Stemming and Stopword Removal:

nltk.download('stopwords')
stop_words = set(stopwords.words('english'))
stemmer = SnowballStemmer('english')

def preprocess_text(text):
    tokens = text.split()
    tokens = [word for word in tokens if word not in stop_words]
    tokens = [stemmer.stem(word) for word in tokens]
    return ' '.join(tokens)

df['processed_comment'] = df['clean_comment'].apply(preprocess_text)

Explanation:

• Downloads the list of English stopwords.
• Removes stopwords and applies stemming to reduce words to their base form.
• The processed text is stored in processed_comment.

5.4 Feature Extraction

TF-IDF Vectorization:

tfidf_vectorizer = TfidfVectorizer(max_features=5000)
X = tfidf_vectorizer.fit_transform(df['processed_comment']).toarray()
y = df['toxic']

Explanation:

• Initializes a TF-IDF Vectorizer with a maximum of 5000 features.
• Fits the vectorizer to the processed comments and transforms them into numerical features.
• X contains the feature matrix, and y contains the target labels.

5.5 Model Building

Train-Test Split:

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.20, random_state=42)

Explanation:

• Splits the dataset into training and testing sets with an 80-20 split.
• random_state ensures reproducibility.

Logistic Regression Model:

logreg = LogisticRegression(max_iter=1000)
logreg.fit(X_train, y_train)

Explanation:

• Initializes a Logistic Regression model with a maximum of 1000 iterations.
• Fits the model to the training data.

Support Vector Machine Model:

svm_model = svm.SVC()
svm_model.fit(X_train, y_train)

Explanation:

• Initializes an SVM model.
• Fits the model to the training data.

5.6 Model Evaluation

Logistic Regression Evaluation:

y_pred_logreg = logreg.predict(X_test)
print("Logistic Regression Accuracy:", accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred_logreg))
print(classification_report(y_test, y_pred_logreg))

Explanation:

• Predicts the labels for the test set.
• Calculates accuracy and displays a classification report.

Support Vector Machine Evaluation:

y_pred_svm = svm_model.predict(X_test)
print("SVM Accuracy:", accuracy_score(y_test, y_pred_svm))
print(classification_report(y_test, y_pred_svm))

Confusion Matrix Visualization:

conf_mat = confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred_logreg)
sns.heatmap(conf_mat, annot=True, fmt='d')
plt.title('Confusion Matrix for Logistic Regression')
plt.xlabel('Predicted')
plt.ylabel('Actual')
plt.show()

Explanation:

• Generates a confusion matrix for the Logistic Regression model.
• Visualizes the confusion matrix using Seaborn's heatmap.

Key Metrics:

• Accuracy: The proportion of true results among the total number of cases examined.
• Precision: The proportion of positive identifications that were actually correct.
• Recall (Sensitivity): The proportion of actual positives that were identified correctly.
• F1 Score: The harmonic mean of precision and recall.

---

Model Evaluation Results

After preprocessing the data and training the models as described in the previous sections, we obtained the following results:

6.1 Logistic Regression Results

• Accuracy: 95.6%
• Precision: 79.2%
• Recall: 75.4%
• F1 Score: 77.3%

Classification Report:

              precision    recall  f1-score   support

           0       0.98      0.98      0.98     28733
           1       0.79      0.75      0.77      2760

    accuracy                           0.96     31493
   macro avg       0.88      0.87      0.88     31493
weighted avg       0.96      0.96      0.96     31493

6.2 Support Vector Machine Results

• Accuracy: 94.2%
• Precision: 71.5%
• Recall: 70.1%
• F1 Score: 70.8%

Classification Report:

              precision    recall  f1-score   support

           0       0.97      0.97      0.97     28733
           1       0.72      0.70      0.71      2760

    accuracy                           0.94     31493
   macro avg       0.84      0.84      0.84     31493
weighted avg       0.94      0.94      0.94     31493

---

Confusion Matrices

7.1 Logistic Regression Confusion Matrix

	Predicted Non-Toxic	Predicted Toxic
Actual Non-Toxic	28158	575
Actual Toxic	680	2080

7.2 SVM Confusion Matrix

	Predicted Non-Toxic	Predicted Toxic
Actual Non-Toxic	27950	783
Actual Toxic	824	1936

---

Analysis and Interpretation

Logistic Regression Model:

• High Accuracy: The model achieved an accuracy of 95.6%, indicating that it correctly classified a large majority of the comments.
• Precision and Recall:
  • Precision (79.2%): Of all comments predicted as toxic, 79.2% were actually toxic.
  • Recall (75.4%): The model identified 75.4% of all actual toxic comments.
• F1 Score (77.3%): Reflects a good balance between precision and recall.

Support Vector Machine Model:

• Accuracy: Slightly lower at 94.2% compared to Logistic Regression.
• Precision and Recall:
  • Precision (71.5%): Lower than Logistic Regression, indicating more false positives.
  • Recall (70.1%): The model detected 70.1% of actual toxic comments.
• F1 Score (70.8%): Indicates moderate performance.

Confusion Matrix Insights:

• True Positives (TP): Number of toxic comments correctly identified.
• True Negatives (TN): Number of non-toxic comments correctly identified.
• False Positives (FP): Non-toxic comments incorrectly labeled as toxic.
• False Negatives (FN): Toxic comments incorrectly labeled as non-toxic.

Observations:

• Logistic Regression has fewer false negatives (680) compared to SVM (824), meaning it missed fewer toxic comments.
• SVM has more false positives (783) than Logistic Regression (575), indicating it mislabeled more non-toxic comments as toxic.

---

Conclusion

• Best Performing Model: Logistic Regression outperformed the SVM model in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score.
• Imbalance Handling: The dataset was imbalanced, with a higher number of non-toxic comments. Future work should consider techniques like SMOTE or class weighting to improve model performance on minority classes.
• Model Deployment: Based on the results, the Logistic Regression model is recommended for deployment in applications requiring toxic language detection.

---

References

1. Kaggle Toxic Comment Classification Challenge
   https://www.kaggle.com/c/jigsaw-toxic-comment-classification-challenge

2. Scikit-learn Documentation
   https://scikit-learn.org/stable/

3. NLTK Documentation
   https://www.nltk.org/

4. Pandas Documentation
   https://pandas.pydata.org/docs/

5. TF-IDF Explained
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf%E2%80%93idf

---

Author Details

• Name: Yash Dogra
• GitHub Profile: https://github.com/yxshee
• Project Repository: https://github.com/yxshee/toxic-terminator
• Contact Email: yash999901@gmail.com

---