Abusive and hateful speech is increasingly spoken rather than written, surfacing in voice notes, calls, and short-form videos. Most detection systems still transcribe speech to text before classifying it, but transcription is unreliable for languages lacking strong speech recognisers, and it discards the tone and emotion that often carry the abuse itself. This paper examines whether abusive speech can instead be detected directly from audio, using CLAP, a model that learns a shared representation of sound and language, evaluated across ten Indic languages in the ADIMA dataset. A lightweight classifier trained on CLAP's existing audio representations, without adapting the model itself, comes within one to three points of a fully supervised system, and far outperforms prompting with no labelled examples at all. Further adaptation with a handful of labelled examples per language yields little extra benefit, varying unpredictably across languages. CLAP-based audio representations thus already offer a strong, inexpensive foundation for detecting abusive speech across languages, lowering the labelled data needed in practice.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed CLAP-based pipeline: a k -shot subset adapts CLAP via supervised contrastive learning (projection-only, or projection+fine-tuning), and the resulting embeddings are evaluated under cross-lingual and leave-one-language-out settings.
Language
ADIMA (0-shot)
Projection-only
Projection+FT
Bengali
79.10
76.3 (0-shot)
76.3 (0-shot)
Bhojpuri
–
70.5 (5-shot)
70.5 (50-shot)
Gujarati
–
74.6 (0-shot)
74.6 (0-shot)
Haryanvi
–
77.6 (10-shot)
77.4 (0-shot)
Hindi
80.70
77.8 (0-shot)
77.8 (0-shot)
Kannada
78.40
76.8 (0-shot)
76.8 (0-shot)
Table 1: Cross-lingual macro-F1 (%) on ADIMA. Projection-only and projection+fine-tuning report mean macro-F1 over 5 support-set draws at the best-performing shot size (single run at k=0 ), shown in parentheses; ADIMA results from Gupta et al. (2022) shown where available. Best score per row in bold.
Figure 2: LOLO vs. cross-lingual evaluation. Top: per-language macro-F1 difference (positive = LOLO stronger). Bottom: mean macro-F1 by shot size.
Encoder
0-shot
best few-shot
avg
CLAP ( clap-htsat-unfused )
76.6
75.9 (1-shot)
75.9
Whisper Large-v3
77.1
79.2 (50-shot)
78.4
Wav2Vec2-large
75.6
74.4 (1-shot)
74.3
XLS-R-300m †
76.2
75.3 (50-shot)
75.1
Wav2Vec2-base
77.2
76.0 (1-shot)
76.0
Table 2: Encoder ablation, projection-only (cross-lingual mean macro-F1 over 5 draws for k≥1 ; single run at k=0 ). “avg” is the mean over all six shot sizes. † : XLS-R’s pre-training includes 7 of the 10 target languages, so cannot cleanly isolate the SSL objective from prior exposure.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Language
1-shot
5-shot
10-shot
25-shot
50-shot
0-shot
Bengali
74.8 ± 0.3
75.0 ± 2.3
74.5 ± 0.9
74.8 ± 1.3
74.2 ± 1.3
76.3
Bhojpuri
70.0 ± 0.9
70.5 ± 0.7
69.9 ± 1.4
70.2 ± 0.8
69.3 ± 1.0
68.9
Gujarati
74.1 ± 1.0
73.7 ± 0.9
74.6 ± 0.8
73.7 ± 1.6
73.6 ± 0.7
74.6
Haryanvi
77.0 ± 1.2
77.2 ± 1.8
77.6 ± 0.8
76.8 ± 0.6
77.4 ± 1.0
77.4
Hindi
77.2 ± 0.3
75.6 ± 0.9
76.4 ± 1.0
77.3 ± 1.1
76.8 ± 0.8
77.8
Kannada
75.6 ± 0.4
75.7 ± 0.6
76.0 ± 1.4
75.6 ± 0.3
74.7 ± 1.0
76.8
Appendix
Table 3: Cross-lingual macro-F1 (mean ± std over 5 seeds), projection-only. k=0 is a single deterministic run (no support-set sampling).
Language
Best shot (proj-only, mean)
0-shot optimal?
Bengali
0
yes
Bhojpuri
5
no
Gujarati
0
yes
Haryanvi
10
no †
Hindi
0
yes
Kannada
0
yes
Appendix
Table 4: Best-performing shot size per language (cross-lingual, projection-only; Table 3 ). † : gain within one std. ‡ : gain approximately one std.
Prompt variant
mean MF1
min
max
P1_basic
53.6
45.1
60.2
P2_hate
65.6
62.3
73.6
P3_offensive
65.2
59.8
72.6
P4_aggressive
64.3
58.4
75.1
Appendix
Table 5: Zero-shot prompt sensitivity (macro-F1 across the ten languages); min/max taken across languages per prompt variant.
Language
Macro-F1 (mean)
Best shot
Bengali
76.3
0-shot
Bhojpuri
70.6
5-shot
Gujarati
74.6
0-shot
Haryanvi
77.7
10-shot
Hindi
77.8
0-shot
Kannada
76.8
0-shot
Appendix
Table 6: Best LOLO results, projection-only (mean macro-F1 over 5 draws, k≥1 ; single run at k=0 ).
Language
Macro-F1 (mean)
Best shot
Bengali
76.3
0-shot
Bhojpuri
70.2
10-shot
Gujarati
74.6
0-shot
Haryanvi
77.4
0-shot
Hindi
77.8
0-shot
Kannada
76.8
0-shot
Appendix
Table 7: Best LOLO results, projection+fine-tuning (mean macro-F1 over 5 draws, k≥1 ; single run at k=0 ).
Figure 3: Language-wise LOLO vs. cross-lingual macro-F1, projection-only and projection+fine-tuning.
Contrastive audio-language models such as CLAP enable zero-shot audio classification: a sound is labelled by matching its embedding to text prompt embeddings, with no labelled audio. This matching breaks down under acoustic noise, where accuracy and mAP fall by 12-30 percentage points at 0 dB SNR on standard benchmarks. We propose Drift Augmented Scoring (DAS), a small per-class bonus added to the cosine score. The bonus rewards a class when the noisy audio embedding drifts in the direction that the class's noise-conditioned text prompts predict. It is derived from text alone, computed once and cached, and adds a single inner product per class at inference, with no gradients and no test-time batch. On a LAION CLAP backbone, we compare DAS against the four variants of Acevedo et al.'s concurrent method on UrbanSound8K and the full FSD50K eval set, mixing each clip with urban acoustic scene noise across a range of SNRs. DAS improves the metric on every test condition: by +2.60 to +5.75 accuracy points on UrbanSound8K and +1.50 to +1.74 mAP points on FSD50K.
We introduce LRLspoof, a large-scale multilingual synthetic-speech corpus for cross-lingual spoof detection, comprising 2,732 hours of audio generated with 24 open-source TTS systems across 66 languages, including 45 low-resource languages under our operational definition. To evaluate robustness without requiring target-domain bonafide speech, we benchmark 11 publicly available countermeasures using threshold transfer: for each model we calibrate an EER operating point on pooled external benchmarks and apply the resulting threshold, reporting spoof rejection rate (SRR). Results show model-dependent cross-lingual disparity, with spoof rejection varying markedly across languages even under controlled conditions, highlighting language as an independent source of domain shift in spoof detection. The dataset is publicly available at \href{https://huggingface.co/datasets/lab260/LRLspoof}{\textbf{*HuggingFace*}} and \href{https://modelscope.cn/datasets/lab260/LRLspoof}{\textbf{*ModelScope*}}
Contrastive language-audio pretraining (CLAP) enables zero-shot audio classification, but standard inference classifies each clip in isolation and ignores the structure of the unlabeled test set. We present the first systematic study of TransCLIP-style transductive inference for CLAP: a text-anchored spherical Gaussian-mixture EM that refines zero-shot posteriors using the audio-embedding statistics of the test batch, with no labels, no gradients, and negligible compute (about 15 ms on one CPU core for 2,000 clips). Across ESC-50, UrbanSound8K, and VocalSound, this consistently improves top-1 accuracy by +4.6 to +9.2 points over the zero-shot baseline (e.g., 89.1 -> 94.8% on ESC-50, 73.8 -> 81.8% on UrbanSound8K). We further show that the gain (i) is governed by a simple operating boundary -- roughly 2.5 test samples per class per batch are required, with diminishing returns beyond ~5; (ii) is complementary to entropy-guided prompt weighting, with the combination reaching 96.2% on ESC-50; and (iii) attenuates but remains positive under long-tailed batches (+4.9 -> +3.1 points at a 20:1 imbalance), which we report as an explicit limitation. We also document a negative result: on TUT Urban Acoustic Scenes 2018, where zero-shot CLAP is near chance, transduction has no signal to amplify.