Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India. · Department of Computer Science, Malwa College Bathinda, Punjab, India. · Department of Management, Akal University Talwandi Sabo, Punjab, India. · Independent Researcher, New Delhi, India. · Department of Computer Science, Galgotias College of Engineering & Technology, India. · Department of Computer Science, UPES Dehradun, India.
Resources for toxicity detection in Punjabi remain limited, particularly for musical content that combines linguistic and multimodal information. We present the Punjabi Geet Toxicity Dataset (PGT-FG), a segment-level resource developed to support research on toxicity detection in Punjabi musical content. The dataset was constructed from publicly available Punjabi songs collected from YouTube. An initial collection of 620 songs resulted in 465 successfully downloaded songs and 3,402 preliminary segments from 450 songs. After quality control and annotation, the final dataset contains 2,396 unique segments from 392 songs. Four native Punjabi annotators produced 2,870 annotation records, including a shared subset of 158 segments annotated by all four. Each annotation includes binary toxicity, eight fine-grained toxicity categories, severity, sentiment, mode, and an uncertainty flag. Inter-annotator agreement was measured with Fleiss' kappa on the shared subset, and majority-based resolution produced the final segment-level labels. Of the 2,396 segments, 705 (29.42%) were labelled toxic and 1,691 (70.58%) non-toxic. Violence was the most frequent category, occurring in 539 toxic segments (76.45%), followed by gang references (227, 32.20%) and drug references (133, 18.87%). The overall toxicity label achieved substantial agreement (kappa = 0.6521). PGT-FG provides a fine-grained resource for Punjabi toxicity detection and multimodal content analysis. The resolved dataset, with one final record per segment, is publicly available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23040156). Original lyrics, lyric excerpts, and copyrighted audio or video content are not redistributed.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Language
Modalities
Samples (Segments)
Label Types
ToxCMM/ToxVidLM
Hindi–English
Text, Audio, Video
4,021
Toxicity, Sentiment, Severity
HateMM
English
Text, Audio, Video
43 hrs
Hate/Non-hate
MultiHateClip
English, Chinese
Video
2,000
Hate/Offensive/Normal
HateXplain
English
Text
20,148
Hate/Offensive/Normal, Target, Rationales
OLID
English
Text
14,000+
Offensive, Target, Target Type
HASOC
English, Hindi, German
Text
17,657
Hate/Offensive/Non-offensive
Table 1: Comparison of PGT-FG with existing toxicity-related datasets.
Figure 1: Dataset construction and quality-control pipeline. The initial inventory contained 620 songs, of which 465 were successfully downloaded and 450 were retained after initial filtering. These songs produced 3,402 candidate segments. A lyric-availability check retained all 450 songs and 3,402 segments. Subsequent data-cleaning and multimodal quality-control procedures removed 53 songs and 1,006 segments, resulting in a final dataset of 397 unique songs and 2,396 unique segments. The final annotation collection contains 2,870 original annotation records because 158 shared segments were independently annotated by four annotators.
Label
Type
Allowed Values and Meaning
Toxicity
Binary
0 = Non-toxic; 1 = Toxic
Categories
Multi-label
Violence, Misogyny, Casteism, Religious, Drug, Gang References, Profanity, Other
Severity
Ordinal
−1 = N/A; 0 = Mild; 1 = Moderate; 2 = Severe
Sentiment
Categorical
0 = Negative; 1 = Neutral; 2 = Positive
Mode
Categorical
−1 = N/A; 0 = Explicit; 1 = Implicit; 2 = Mixed
Uncertainty Flag
Binary
0 = No uncertainty flagged; 1 = Uncertainty flagged
Table 2: Label schema used for annotation of PGT-FG.
Label
Decision Criterion
Severity = −1
Non-toxic or not applicable
Severity = 0
Mild content, such as a single profanity or a brief mention of harmful content
Severity = 1
Moderate content, including sustained glorification, objectification, or general threats
Severity = 2
Severe content, including explicit violence, named targets, graphic content, or incitement
Mode = −1
Not applicable
Mode = 0
Explicit harmful content stated directly
Table 3: Decision criteria for severity and mode annotation.
Label
κ
Interpretation
Toxicity
0.6521
Substantial
Violence
0.6354
Substantial
Misogyny
0.6651
Substantial
Casteism
-0.0016
Poor
Religious
N/A
Not estimable – no variation
Drug
0.7488
Substantial
Table 4: Inter-annotator agreement measured using Fleiss’ Kappa on the shared subset of 158 segments independently annotated by four annotators.
Statistic
Value
Total Songs Collected
620
Successfully Downloaded Songs
465
Initial Segments
3,402
Final Unique Songs
397
Final Unique Segments
2,396
Annotation Records
2,870
Table 5: Overall statistics of PGT-FG.
Toxicity
Count
Percentage
Non-toxic
1,691
70.58%
Toxic
705
29.42%
Total
2,396
100.00%
Table 6: Distribution of toxic and non-toxic segments.
Figure 2: Distribution of toxic and non-toxic segments in the final dataset.
Figure 3: Sentiment distribution within the toxic and non-toxic segments. Positive sentiment was the dominant category in both groups, accounting for 63.87% of non-toxic segments and 70.35% of toxic segments. Negative sentiment accounted for 19.46% of non-toxic and 13.62% of toxic segments, while neutral sentiment accounted for 16.68% and 16.03%, respectively. The distribution illustrates that sentiment and toxicity are distinct annotation dimensions and that toxic content can occur within segments expressing an overall positive sentiment.
Severity
Count
Percentage
Mild
112
15.89%
Moderate
357
50.64%
Severe
236
33.48%
Total
705
100.00%
Table 7: Severity distribution of toxic segments.
Sentiment
Count
Percentage
Negative
425
17.74%
Neutral
395
16.49%
Positive
1,576
65.78%
Total
2,396
100.00%
Table 8: Sentiment distribution of unique song segments.
Mode
Count
Percentage
Explicit
567
80.43%
Implicit
106
15.04%
Mixed
32
4.54%
Total
705
100.00%
Table 9: Mode distribution of toxic segments.
Toxicity Category
Count
Percentage
Violence
539
76.45%
Misogyny
20
2.84%
Casteism
2
0.28%
Religious
0
0.00%
Drug
133
18.87%
Gang References
227
32.20%
Table 10: Distribution of fine-grained toxicity categories among toxic segments.
Figure 4: Distribution of fine-grained toxicity categories among the 705 toxic segments in the final dataset. Since the categories are multi-label, a segment may belong to more than one category; therefore, the percentages do not sum to 100%.
Field
Data Type
Allowed Values
Description
verse_id
String
Unique identifier
Unique identifier assigned to each song segment.
song_id
String
Song identifier
Identifier linking the segment to its source song.
start_sec
Float
≥0
Start time of the segment in seconds.
end_sec
Float
≥0
End time of the segment in seconds.
duration_sec
Float
>0
Duration of the segment in seconds.
artist_name
String
Artist name
Name of the artist associated with the source song.
Table 11: Schema of the released PGT-FG annotation CSV file.
The development of robust hate speech detection systems remains limited by the lack of large-scale, fine-grained training data, especially for languages beyond English. Existing corpora typically rely on simplistic toxic and non-toxic labels, and the few that capture hate directed at specific minority groups lack the positive counterexamples required to distinguish genuine hate from mere discussion. In this work, we introduce ToxSyn-PT, the first Portuguese large-scale corpus explicitly designed for multi-label hate speech detection across nine protected minority groups, including the non-toxic counterexamples absent in all other public datasets. Generated via a controllable four-stage pipeline, ToxSyn contains discourse-type annotations to capture rhetorical strategies of toxic/non-toxic language, such as sarcasm, dehumanization, and cultural appreciation. Our experiments reveal a catastrophic, mutual generalization failure compared to existing datasets from social-media domains: models trained on social media struggle to generalize to minority-specific contexts, and vice-versa. This finding indicates they are distinct tasks and exposes summary metrics like Macro F1 can be unreliable indicators of true model behavior, as they completely mask model failure. We publicly release ToxSyn on HuggingFace to support reproducible research on synthetic data generation and benchmark progress in hate-speech detection for low- and mid-resource languages.
Iago Alves Brito, Julia Soares Dollis, Fernanda Bufon Farber +2
Advanced Knowledge Center for Immersive Technologies (AKCIT) · Federal University of Goiás
Toxic speech detection has become a crucial challenge in maintaining safe online communication environments. However, existing approaches to toxic speech detection often neglect the contribution of paralinguistic cues, such as emotion, intonation, and speech rate, which are key to detecting speech toxicity. Moreover, current toxic speech datasets are predominantly text-based, limiting the development of models that can capture paralinguistic cues.To address these challenges, we present ToxiAlert-Bench, a large-scale audio dataset comprising over 30,000 audio clips annotated with seven major toxic categories and twenty fine-grained toxic labels. Uniquely, our dataset annotates toxicity sources -- distinguishing between textual content and paralinguistic origins -- for comprehensive toxic speech analysis.Furthermore, we propose a dual-head neural network with a multi-stage training strategy tailored for toxic speech detection. This architecture features two task-specific classification headers: one for identifying the source of sensitivity (textual or paralinguistic), and the other for categorizing the specific toxic type. The training process involves independent head training followed by joint fine-tuning to reduce task interference. To mitigate data class imbalance, we incorporate class-balanced sampling and weighted loss functions.Our experimental results show that leveraging paralinguistic features significantly improves detection performance. Our method consistently outperforms existing baselines across multiple evaluation metrics, with a 21.1% relative improvement in Macro-F1 score and a 13.0% relative gain in accuracy over the strongest baseline, highlighting its enhanced effectiveness and practical applicability.
Zhongjie Ba, Liang Yi, Peng Cheng +3
The State Key Laboratory of Blockchain and Data Security, Zhejiang University · Hangzhou High-Tech Zone (Binjiang) Institute of Blockchain and Data Security, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China · School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology
We introduce a new, contextual, multilingual dataset called ToxiREX: Toxic REasoning in ConteXt. The dataset consists of threads of Reddit comments and structured characterizations of what the comments imply, following a systematic toxic reasoning schema developed in a previous paper. Using the schema allows us to capture and explain implicit and context-dependent toxicity, while supporting mappings to existing toxicity taxonomies. The dataset includes comments in six languages (English, Arabic, Turkish, Spanish, German, and Dutch), collected from posts connected to specific major events (e.g. the 2023 Turkey earthquakes; the Russian invasion of Ukraine). We describe the context-preserving preprocessing of the threads. We create a training set of 125 thousand comments which is annotated by a commercially available LLM, and a test set of just under three thousand comments that is annotated by native speakers. We show that apparent disagreements in the test set annotations often reflect defensible alternative interpretations rather than noise. Finally, we provide baseline results by prompting and fine-tuning language models. To produce these results, we develop evaluation strategies for our hierarchical, schema-based predictions. While models perform better than random, there remains a lot of room for improvement, showing the task to be challenging. ToxiREX is the first dataset to simultaneously incorporate multiple languages, conversational context, and implicit toxicity, while using the toxic reasoning schema for rich, structured annotations. Dataset available at: https://github.com/cltl/toxirex