Text toxicity detection systems exhibit significant biases, producing disproportionate rates of false positives on samples mentioning demographic groups. But what about toxicity detection in speech? To investigate the extent to which text-based biases are mitigated by speech-based systems, we produce a set of high-quality group annotations for the multilingual MuTOX dataset, and then leverage these annotations to systematically compare speech- and text-based toxicity classifiers. Our findings indicate that access to speech data during inference supports reduced bias against group mentions, particularly for ambiguous and disagreement-inducing samples. Our results also suggest that improving classifiers, rather than transcription pipelines, is more helpful for reducing group bias. We publicly release our annotations and provide recommendations for future toxicity dataset construction.

Multilingual toxicity detection remains a significant challenge due to the scarcity of training data and resources for many languages. While prior work has leveraged the translate-test paradigm to support cross-lingual transfer across a range of classification tasks, the utility of translation in supporting toxicity detection at scale remains unclear.In this work, we conduct a comprehensive comparison of translation-based and language-specific/multilingual classification pipelines.We find that translation-based pipelines consistently outperform out-of-distribution classifiers in 81.3% of cases (13 of 16 languages), with translation benefits strongly correlated with both the resource level of the target language and the quality of the machine translation (MT) system.Our analysis reveals that traditional classifiers continue to outperform LLM-based judgment methods, with this advantage being particularly pronounced for low-resource languages, where translate-classify methods dominate translate-judge approaches in 6 out of 7 cases.We show that MT-specific fine-tuning on LLMs yields lower refusal rates compared to standard instruction-tuned models, but it can negatively impact toxicity detection accuracy for low-resource languages.These findings offer actionable guidance for practitioners developing scalable multilingual content moderation systems.

Grammatical error detection (GED) in non-native writing requires systems to identify a wide range of errors in text written by language learners. Error detection as a purely supervised task can be challenging, as GED datasets are limited in size and the label distributions are highly imbalanced. Contextualized word representations offer a possible solution, as they can efficiently capture compositional information in language and can be optimized on large amounts of unsupervised data. In this paper, we perform a systematic comparison of ELMo, BERT and Flair embeddings (Peters et al., 2017; Devlin et al., 2018; Akbik et al., 2018) on a range of public GED datasets, and propose an approach to effectively integrate such representations in current methods, achieving a new state of the art on GED. We further analyze the strengths and weaknesses of different contextual embeddings for the task at hand, and present detailed analyses of their impact on different types of errors.