You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
Growing amount of comments make online discussions difficult to moderate by human moderators only. Antisocial behavior is a common occurrence that often discourages other users from participating in discussion. We propose a neural network based method that partially automates the moderation process. It consists of two steps. First, we detect inappropriate comments for moderators to see. Second, we highlight inappropriate parts within these comments to make the moderation faster. We evaluated our method on data from a major Slovak news discussion platform.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which anyone can edit. While most edits are constructive, about 7 are acts of vandalism. Such behavior is characterized by modifications made in bad faith; introducing spam and other inappropriate content. In this work, we present the results of an effort to integrate three of the leading approaches to Wikipedia vandalism detection: a spatio-temporal analysis of metadata (STiki), a reputation-based system (WikiTrust), and natural language processing features. The performance of the resulting joint system improves the state-of-the-art from all previous methods and establishes a new baseline for Wikipedia vandalism detection. We examine in detail the contribution of the three approaches, both for the task of discovering fresh vandalism, and for the task of locating vandalism in the complete set of Wikipedia revisions.

[2]: 

[3]: Most current approaches to characterize and detect hate speech focus on posted in Online Social Networks. They face shortcomings to collect and annotate hateful speech due to the incompleteness and noisiness of OSN text and the subjectivity of hate speech. These limitations are often aided with constraints that oversimplify the problem, such as considering only tweets containing hate-related words. In this work we partially address these issues by shifting the focus towards . We develop and employ a robust methodology to collect and annotate hateful users which does not depend directly on lexicon and where the users are annotated given their entire profile. This results in a sample of Twitter's retweet graph containing @math users, out of which @math were annotated. We also collect the users who were banned in the three months that followed the data collection. We show that hateful users differ from normal ones in terms of their activity patterns, word usage and as well as network structure. We obtain similar results comparing the neighbors of hateful vs. neighbors of normal users and also suspended users vs. active users, increasing the robustness of our analysis. We observe that hateful users are densely connected, and thus formulate the hate speech detection problem as a task of semi-supervised learning over a graph, exploiting the network of connections on Twitter. We find that a node embedding algorithm, which exploits the graph structure, outperforms content-based approaches for the detection of both hateful ( @math AUC vs @math AUC) and suspended users ( @math AUC vs @math AUC). Altogether, we present a user-centric view of hate speech, paving the way for better detection and understanding of this relevant and challenging issue.

[4]: User contributions in the form of posts, comments, and votes are essential to the success of online communities. However, allowing user participation also invites undesirable behavior such as trolling. In this paper, we characterize antisocial behavior in three large online discussion communities by analyzing users who were banned from these communities. We find that such users tend to concentrate their efforts in a small number of threads, are more likely to post irrelevantly, and are more successful at garnering responses from other users. Studying the evolution of these users from the moment they join a community up to when they get banned, we find that not only do they write worse than other users over time, but they also become increasingly less tolerated by the community. Further, we discover that antisocial behavior is exacerbated when community feedback is overly harsh. Our analysis also reveals distinct groups of users with different levels of antisocial behavior that can change over time. We use these insights to identify antisocial users early on, a task of high practical importance to community maintainers.

[5]: Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author's future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.
Apart from detecting inappropriate texts, multiple works focus on detecting users that should be banned [4] by analyzing their posts and their activity in general [1] [2] , their relationships with other users [3] and the reaction of other users [5] or moderators [4] towards them.