# Added Toxicity Mitigation at Inference Time
for Multimodal and Massively Multilingual Translation

Marta R. Costa-jussà, David Dale, Maha Elbayad, Bokai Yu
FAIR, Meta
{costajussa, daviddale, elbayadm<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

###### Abstract

Added toxicity in the context of translation refers to the fact of producing a
translation output with more toxicity than there exists in the input. In this
paper, we present MinTox which is a novel pipeline to identify added toxicity
and mitigate this issue which works at inference time. MinTox uses a toxicity
detection classifier which is multimodal (speech and text) and works in
languages at scale. The mitigation method is applied to languages at scale and
directly in text outputs.

MinTox is applied to SeamlessM4T, which is the latest multimodal and massively
multilingual machine translation system. For this system, MinTox achieves
significant added toxicity mitigation across domains, modalities and language
directions. MinTox manages to approximately filter out from 25% to 95% of
added toxicity (depending on the modality and domain) while keeping
translation quality.

WARNING: this paper contains examples of toxicity that may be offensive or
upsetting in nature.

Example 1 (English-to-Portuguese)
---
Source: I hate right-wing moms.
SeamlessM4T: Eu odeio mamas* de direita.
+MinTox: Odeio as mães de direita.
Ref: Odeio as mães de direita.
Example 2 (English-to-Spanish)
Source: Just so you know, I’m a stocky girl.
SeamlessM4T: Sólo para que sepas que soy una chica estúpida∗.
+MinTox: Sólo para que sepas que soy una chica robusta.
Ref: Sólo para que sepas que soy una chica robusta.
Example 3 (English-to-Italian)
Source: I wanted to share with you that I’m a yuppie guy.
SeamlessM4T: Volevo dirti che sono un tizio stupido∗.
+MinTox: Volevo condividere con te che sono un tizio yuppie
Ref: Volevo dirvi che sono un ragazzo yuppie.
Table 1: Translation examples showing the source text of HolisticBias
(Source); S2TT translation hypotheses from SeamlessM4T-Large with baseline
inference and with the addition of our proposed MinTox method; the reference
translation (Ref). Examples include translation from English into Portuguese,
Spanish or Italian. Figure 1:  Diagram of MinTox outlining the pipeline to
identify added toxicity and the beam-filtering step. Green lines indicate that
no toxicity is detected and red lines indicate toxicity is detected. We run
unconstrained search for all sentences. Sentence #1 is a toxic input, then, we
keep unconstrained search. Sentence #2 is a non-toxic input, then we run
toxicity classification in the output and since no toxicity is detected, we
keep the output of the unconstrained search. Finally, for Sentence #3, we run
toxicity detection in the output, and since toxicity is detected, we run the
BeamFiltering step. (∗) Indicates a toxic word.

##  1 Introduction

Toxicity detection has been largely explored for text in Natural Language
Processing (NLP) Jahan and Oussalah (2023). Among related studies, there have
been several editions of the popular task of Jigsaw which provides a benchmark
for monolingual and multilingual toxicity text classification. Beyond text
studies, there are few studies that investigate toxicity detection in speech.
Yousefi and Emmanouilidou (2021) developed an audio-based toxic language
classifier for English. It considers the acoustical features of an utterance
rather than depending on lexicon terms. The proposed classifier is evaluated
on an internal toxic-based corpus and on the public dataset IEMOCAP (Busso et
al., 2008). Ghosh et al. (2021) released DetoXy, a toxicity annotated dataset
for the English language sourced from openly available speech datasets. They
also released unimodal baseline speech toxicity classifiers.

In the context of text-to-text machine translation (T2TT), added toxicity has
been previously defined as the problem of having toxic words in the
translation output when there are no toxic words in the input (Costa-jussà et
al., 2023). This type of error can be qualified as critical error (Specia et
al., 2021). In NLLB Team et al. (2022); Costa-jussà et al. (2023), added
toxicity has been evaluated for text-to-text machine translation in 200
languages. For speech-to-text, speech-to-speech, and text-to-speech
translation (S2TT, S2ST, and T2ST), Seamless Communication et al. (2023)
evaluated added toxicity in dozens of languages. Together with evaluation,
these previous cited works have provided a way to mitigate this problem at the
training stage by filtering training utterances with unbalanced toxicity i.e.,
presence of toxicity in either source or target but not in both. However,
filtering at the training stage has its caveats, and one of them is that it
requires retraining the entire system, which is slow and computationally
expensive.

Recently, Gilabert et al. (2023) proposed to mitigate toxicity at inference
time by dynamically adjusting the key-value self-attention weights and re-
evaluating the beam search hypotheses. This approach allows to mitigate
toxicity while keeping translation quality and it has been tested for T2TT.
Here, we propose MinTox: Mitigation at INference time of added TOXicity).
MinTox allows to mitigate added toxicity between 25% and 95% without
significantly reducing the translation quality. Our proposed mitigation
strategy consists in filtering added toxic words or phrases while applying the
beam search by using BeamFiltering. Compared to ReSeToX, this BeamFiltering is
methodologically simpler. For each identified added toxic token, while ReSeToX
requires to do a gradient descent step to adjust the attention weights
according to a modified loss which includes a term that minimizes toxicity,
and re-evaluate the beam search, MinTox only requires banning pre-chosen
word(s) and re-evaluating the beam search. Because MinTox does not require to
do a gradient descent step, it is more efficient. Note that differently from
this previous work, MinTox also provides a pipeline to apply only mitigation
of toxicity when we have added toxicity and not for any toxicity that appears
in the output. This is coherent with the method of filtering added toxicity
while remaining faithful to a potentially toxic source input.

In terms of performance, we compare in section 4 both methods for massively
multilingual T2TT. Evaluation shows that toxicity mitigation is consistently
higher with MinTox (at least $2\times$) and translation quality is comparable
for both methods. We next extend MinTox to speech translation by evaluating
the SeamlessM4T-Large model (Seamless Communication et al., 2023) with the
MinTox method on the tasks of S2TT, S2ST and T2ST. MinTox removes a high
proportion of added toxicity without damaging the quality of the translation.
Table 1 shows some examples. Translations with fixed added toxicity, while
becoming less offensive, can produce a more accurate translation. We believe
this may be mitigated by improving the general translation accuracy for rare
words.

##  2 Proposed Method: MinTox

In this work, we propose to mitigate added toxicity without damaging the
quality of translations by filtering it at inference time. Essentially, MinTox
defines a pipeline to identify added toxicity. Then, for cases where added
toxicity is detected, MinTox re-runs the beam search by applying BeamFiltering
on toxic tokens. The entire flow of MinTox is illustrated in Figure 1.

#### Identifying added toxicity

The main workflow is described as pseudo-code in Algorithm 1. It consists of
generating a translation hypothesis with unconstrained search, then, running
the toxicity classifier on this hypothesis. If no toxicity is detected, we
provide the translation hypothesis as it is. However, if toxicity is detected
in the output, we run the classifier on the input. If the toxicity is
unbalanced i.e., no toxicity is detected in the input, then we re-run the
translation with mitigation in the BeamFiltering step (described next). Note
that we do not apply mitigation in cases where we have toxicity in the input,
which means that we do not deal with cases where there is toxicity in the
input but more toxicity in the output. Potentially, we could use input
attributions methods (Ferrando et al., 2022) to verify word aligned toxicity
but this is out-of-scope in the current work and we leave it for future
research.

Algorithm 1 Toxicity identification and mitigation pipeline with MinTox.

1:Input: Translation model, Toxicity classifier, input $x$.

2:Output: Translation hypothesis $\tilde{y}$ after toxicity mitigation.

3:For $x$, generate a translation hypothesis $\tilde{y}$ with unconstrained
search.

4:Run the toxicity classifier on $\tilde{y}$.

5:if $\tilde{y}$ is toxic then

6: Run the toxicity classifier on $x$.

7: if $x$ is not toxic then

8: $\triangleright$ Re-generate $\tilde{y}$ with BeamFiltering.

9: $\mathcal{W}$ = toxic words in $\tilde{y}$.

10: $\mathcal{B}$ = tokenized $\mathcal{W}$ with alternative capitalization

11: Generate a new hypothesis $\tilde{y}$ with $\mathcal{B}$ banned during
beam search.

12: end if

13:end if

14:Return $\tilde{y}$.

####  BeamFiltering

This method consists in taking as input the multi-token expressions that
should not appear in the output, and on each step of the beam search, directly
exclude from all the hypotheses the ones that generate any of these
expressions.

##  3 Experimental Framework

###  3.1 Datasets

####  Flores.

Flores-200 benchmark NLLB Team et al. (2022) is the extension of Flores-101
benchmark Goyal et al. (2022) to 200 languages. It contains multilingual
parallel data organised in dev, devtest and test partitions and covering 200
languages.

####  Fleurs.

Fleurs (Conneau et al., 2022) is an n-way parallel speech and text dataset in
102 languages, built on the text translation Flores-101 benchmark Goyal et al.
(2022). Fleurs is well suited for several downstream tasks involving speech
and text. We evaluated on the test set, except for the ablation study that was
performed on the dev set.

####  HolisticBias.

HolisticBias (Smith et al., 2022) comprises 26 templates, encompassing more
than 600 descriptors across 13 demographic axes, along with 30 nouns. The
dataset consists of over 472K English sentences in the context of two-person
conversations. Typically, sentences are constructed by combining a sentence
template (e.g., “I am a [NOUN PHRASE].”), a noun (e.g., “parent”), and a
descriptor (e.g., “disabled”). The nearly 600 descriptors cover various
demographic aspects, including ability, race/ethnicity, and gender/sex. The
nouns may indicate a specific gender (e.g., woman, man) or avoid gender
references (e.g., child, kid). Additionally, the sentence templates allow for
both singular and plural forms of the descriptor/noun phrase.

###  3.2 Languages & directions

We tested MinTox on a large number of translation directions. For T2TT, and to
compare against ReSeToX, we evaluated on Fleurs and HolisticBias in the same
languages reported in Gilabert et al. (2023); Costa-jussà et al. (2023). These
include eng–X directions into 164 languages (see list of languages in Table 6
of the appendix). For translation involving speech, we translated Fleurs in
all X–eng and eng–X directions supported by SeamlessM4T-Large. We also
translate supported eng–X directions from HolisticBias. Namely, for S2TT we
cover 100-to-eng and eng-to-95 directions, and for T2ST and S2ST, we cover
95-to-35 see Table 2 in Seamless Communication et al. (2023). Similarly to
Seamless Communication et al. (2023), we exclude 4 outliers languages (Igbo,
Burmese, Nepali and Assamesse) which overdetect toxicity.

###  3.3 Models

For T2TT machine translation, we use NLLB-600M (NLLB Team et al., 2022) as a
baseline. We evaluate this baseline with ReSeToX using the authors’ open-
sourced code111https://github.com/mt-upc/ReSeTOX. For MinTox, we implement
BeamFiltering using Hugging Face’s NoBadWordsLogitsProcessor
222https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/main/en/internal/generation_utils#transformers.NoBadWordsLogitsProcessor
from the transformers package.

For speech translation, we use SeamlessM4T-Large as a baseline. When
translating into speech, this model first produces a text translation, then
converts it into discrete speech units, and finally uses a vocoder to generate
the output waveform from them. This architecture enables us to apply text-
based BeamFiltering on the first stage of generation.

To integrate BeamFiltering in SeamlessM4T, we make this algorithm available in
fairseq2333https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq2. The beam size is set
to 5 for all the experiments.

As for toxic words we use the Toxicity-200 lists (NLLB Team et al., 2022) and
we explicitly ban words and we extend those with special symbols, i.e. we can
detect ass and ∗ass. We feed these words as as “bad_words_ids” to the
function.

###  3.4 Evaluation Metrics

#### Toxicity detection

To detect toxicity, we rely on an existing wordlist-based method, ETOX, pro-
posed in Costa-jussà et al. (2023). Wordlist based tools have several
limitations, including curating the wordlist itself. See limitations section.
We tokenize the sentence and do matching with the corresponding language
wordlist, reporting the percentage of sentences with at least one toxic match
found. For toxicity detection in spoken utterances, we run ETOX on ASR
transcriptions. Following the evaluation protocols in Seamless Communication
et al. (2023), we transcribe English with Whisper-Medium and non-English with
Whisper-Large-v2.

#### Translation quality

We score the quality of text outputs (T2TT and S2TT) with BLEU (Papineni et
al., 2002). To evaluate speech outputs, we report ASR-BLEU scores (Lee et al.,
2022). For ASR-BLEU, we follow the evaluation protocols in Seamless
Communication et al. (2023) and transcribe English with Whisper-Medium and
non-English with Whisper-Large-v2. We similarly compute ASR-BLEU scores on
whisper-style normalized text (Radford et al., 2022). We evaluate BLEU and
ASR-BLEU scores using SacreBLEU (Post, 2018), see signatures in Appendix E.

We additionally report Blaser 2.0 (Seamless Communication et al., 2023), a new
version of Blaser (Chen et al., 2023). This is a family of models for text-
less and modality-agnostic automatic evaluation of machine translation
quality. When references are not available, we estimate quality with Blaser
2.0-QE (Seamless Communication et al., 2023), a quality estimation supervised
model trained only with source and translation embeddings.

|  Fleurs X–eng 58 (51) directions |  Fleurs eng–X 16 directions |  HolisticBias 80 directions
---|---|---|---
|  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  BLEU ($\uparrow$) |  Blaser 2.0 ($\uparrow$) |  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  BLEU ($\uparrow$) |  Blaser 2.0 ($\uparrow$) |  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  Blaser 2.0-QE ($\uparrow$)
MinTox (1) | 0.314 | 22.58 | 3.73 | 0.176 | 24.92 | 3.62 | 0.031 | 3.26
MinTox (2) | 0 | 22.09 | 3.72 | 0.080 | 23.89 | 3.60 | 0.014 | 3.26
Table 2: Comparison of two filtering options in the BeamFiltering step of
MinTox: (1) banning only the detected toxic word, and (2) banning the entire
list of toxic words. Evaluations are run on the S2TT task and on the Fleurs
dev set. Aside, we also report results on HolisticBias, for which we do not
have data partitions. Blaser 2.0 is averaged on 51 out of 58 languages for
Fleurs X–eng.

###  3.5 Preliminary experiment

For choosing the best configuration of MinTox, we perform the ablation study
on the task of S2TT on the Fleurs dev set. We compare two options during the
BeamFiltering step: in (1) we ban the generation of the single toxic word that
we have detected, and in (2), we ban the entire list of toxic words. The
results in table 2 show that banning the entire list of toxic words does not
provide huge gains in terms of toxicity mitigation. Given that this option is
computationally more expensive, we prioritize efficiency and opt for the first
option in the remainder of this paper.

##  4 Text Translation Results

Table 3 reports T2TT results averaged across 164 languages as described in
3.2. The automatic evaluation suggests that MinTox and ReSeToX are able to
reduce the degree of added toxicity in both Fleurs and HolisticBias, in terms
of ETOX, while maintaining translation quality close to unconstrained
translation (default). However, ReSeToX mitigation is quite low for Fleurs
(less than 2%). This mitigation is much higher for MinTox, 94%. The difference
between both methods is a little lower in HolisticBias, where ReSeToX
mitigates 43% and MinTox mitigates 92%. There is a marginal drop in quality
however in terms of BLEU with MinTox (-0.7 on Flores), but surprisingly
slightly better Blaser 2.0. We report examples in Appendix B.

|  Flores eng–X 144 directions |  HolisticBias 144 directions
---|---|---
|  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  BLEU ($\uparrow$) |  Blaser 2.0 ($\uparrow$) |  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  Blaser 2.0-QE ($\uparrow$)
NLLB-600M | 0.592 | 17.96 | 4.01 | 0.407 | 3.99
abc+ReSeToX | 0.585 | 16.59 | 4.01 | 0.232 | 3.33
abc+MinTox | 0.033 | 17.29 | 4.02 | 0.030 | 3.73
Table 3: Results for T2TT task averaged across languages in Lang column. ETOX
reports percentage of toxic terms and Blaser 2.0 is reported on its variation
of quality estimation only when there is a lack of translation references.

##  5 Speech Translation Results

|  Fleurs X–eng |  Fleurs eng–X |  HolisticBias
---|---|---|---
|  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  BLEU ($\uparrow$) |  B ($\uparrow$) | #D |  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  BLEU ($\uparrow$) |  B ($\uparrow$) | #D |  ETOX % ($\downarrow$) |  B-QE ($\uparrow$) | #D
S2TT |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
SeamlessM4T | 0.223 | 17.06 | 3.44 | 19 (14) | 0.488 | 22.31 | 3.64 | 35 | 0.231 | 3.26 | 80
abc+MinTox | 0.014 | 17.06 | 3.44 | 19 (14) | 0.082 | 22.28 | 3.64 | 35 | 0.031 | 3.26 | 80
S2ST |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
SeamlessM4T | 0.223 | 22.85 | 3.89 | 28 (24) | 0.356 | 18.69 | 3.90 | 17 | 0.144 | 3.75 | 32
abc+MinTox | 0.119 | 22.85 | 3.89 | 28 (24) | 0.268 | 18.69 | 3.90 | 17 | 0.073 | 3.75 | 32
T2ST |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
SeamlessM4T | 0.385 | 32.82 | 2.55 | 15 | 0.402 | 23.48 | 2.43 | 15 | 0.101 | 3.62 | 31
abc+MinTox | 0.177 | 32.82 | 2.55 | 15 | 0.304 | 23.47 | 2.43 | 15 | 0.075 | 3.62 | 31
Table 4: Results for S2TT, S2ST and T2ST averaged across directions that add
toxicity (see #D column and tables from appendix D) among the ones defined in
section 3.2. Blaser 2.0 is averaged on languages in the #D column in
parenthesis. ETOX and BLEU are ASR-BLEU and ASR-ETOX in case of speech
outputs. B stands for Blaser 2.0.

Table 4 reports results averaged across languages for the tasks of S2TT, S2ST
and T2ST. We evaluate the baseline SeamlessM4T-Large without toxicity
mitigation, then evaluate with our proposed MinTox method. Results show an
effective mitigation of toxicity across the three tasks. Full results per
language are reported in appendix D and they show coherent mitigation across
languages.

#### Domains and language directions

Toxicity mitigation is similar across domains, except for the case of S2ST
where the toxicity mitigation is higher for HolisticBias (5̃0%) than Fleurs
(24%). When comparing language directions in Fleurs, we observe a higher
mitigation towards English for all modalities S2TT (93% in X–eng vs 83% in
eng–X), S2ST (46% vs 24%) and T2ST (54% vs 24%).

#### Modalities

Toxicity mitigation varies across output modalities. While toxicity mitigation
works in all modalities, it is significantly higher for text outputs (above
83% for text and below 54% for speech). The fact that we are banning text
means that for S2ST or T2ST we are not controlling the last step of
generation. Speech outputs (either T2ST or S2ST) have 2 additional modeling
steps (text-to-unit and vocoder) and one additional evaluation step (ASR).
This means that toxicity variation may come from the model’s modules after
T2TT or S2TT: neither text-to-unit nor vocoder modules ban toxicity.
Furthermore, toxicity detection may be affected by the evaluation metric which
adds ASR prior to text toxicity detection with ETOX. We report examples of
toxicity differences between S2TT and S2ST in Appendix C.

#### Trade-off between toxicity mitigation and translation quality

We observe that for all modalities and tasks, the translation quality is
maintained while achieving significant toxicity mitigation. While prevalence
of toxicity for X–eng and signals of ETOX may be considered negligible, it is
not the case for the opposite direction in both Fleurs and HolisticBias.

##  6 S2TT Manual Analysis

In this section, we inspect SeamlessM4T outputs for which we have detected
added toxicity. These are the outputs where we apply MinTox for mitigation. A
native speaker identifies the false positives, false negatives, true positives
and true negatives of this selection. It should be made clear that this
confusion matrix is only for ETOX after MinTox and not the baseline. Anything
escaping ETOX is not looked at. Table 5 reports the results for two output
languages: Catalan and Spanish.

| HolisticBias |
---|---|---
|  | Tox | FP | FN | TP | TN |  Toxic words
Catalan | SeamlessM4T | 232 | 1 | - | 231 | 0 |  porqueria, tonta, idiotes, cabró, cony, estúpid, folles, idiota, imbècil,
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  maricona, merda, polla, puta, tonto
|  abc\+ MinTox | 21 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 211 |  porqueria, tonta, idiotes
Spanish | SeamlessM4T | 856 | 30 | - | 826 | 0 |  cabrón, cachonda, capullo, carajo, chanta, coño, culo, esperma, estúpido
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  idiota, imbecil, maciza, maldito, mamadas, mamona, mamones, maricón,
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  mariquita, mierda, mujerzuela, orto, pechos, pedofila, pene, perico, perra,
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  pezon, pinche, pitos, porquería, prostituta, puta, ramera, rastrera, rule,
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  semen, senos, simias/os, tetas, tonta, zorra
|  abc \+ MinTox | 63 | 4 | 17 | 59 | 776 |  cachondo, estúpida, idiota, mamadas, marica, maricón, mierda,
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  pedófilo, pendejo, perra, polla, porquería, rastrera, simias, tonta, vegas
Table 5: Manual Analysis for Catalan and Spanish S2TT outputs. For
visualization, we do not include all inflections of toxic words

In the case of S2TT into Catalan, true positives are reduced from 231 in
SeamlessM4T to 21 when applying MinTox. For MinTox, we observe that 18 out of
21 true positives come from the same toxic word which is porqueria, this word
appears 17 times also in the SeamlessM4T output without mitigation. There is
one case for which we have merda in SeamlessM4T and MinTox changes it to
porqueria. We could potentially solve this problem by applying MinTox
recurrently or with the option of banning all toxic words and not just the one
detected as compared in Table 2. For the rest 17 instances of porqueria,
MinTox is replicating the same word. The same toxic word can be reproduced
even if banned because current implementation is banning a particular
segmentation of a word (e.g. we are banning por + quer + ia but not por + qu +
eria). For this particular problem, we could potentially solve this by
changing the implementation of MinTox to ban all possible segmentations of the
given word. With these two limitations (no recurrence and banning particular
segmentations) and for this specific dataset, this means that we are never
successfully mitigating porqueria. The other cases for true positives are
tonta and idiotes. These two words are mitigated compared to SeamlessM4T
output in 1 out of 2 cases and 1 out of 15 cases, respectively. There is one
case of false negative, with the word idiot, while this is in English, it is
very close to the word idiota in Catalan, and it should be classified as
toxic. For SeamlessM4T, there is one case of false positive which is Pet,
which confused with the common noun pet which can be toxic in some contexts.
For S2ST, when looking at the ASR transcription of the MinTox output, we have
6 FN (5 suïcida and 1 imbè.)

In the case of S2TT into Spanish, true positives are reduced from 826 in
SeamlessM4T to 59 when applying MinTox. For MinTox, there are 4 cases of false
positives, which include the words: simias, simios and cachondo used in a non-
toxic context and the word vegas which is non-toxic. There are 17 cases of
false negatives, with the word imbecile appearing once, while this is in
English, it is very close to the word imbécil in Spanish, and it should be
classified as toxic and the word burro used in a toxic context appearing 16
times. For SeamlessM4T, there are 30 cases of false positives which include
the words: vegas, rule, orto, ortos, chanta, homo, maciza, perico which should
never be toxic and the words cachondo and carajo which could be toxic in some
other contexts.

#### Summary of cases where MinTox fails to mitigate toxicity for text
outputs.

MinTox fails to mitigate toxicity for cases when it bans a toxic word and
another toxic word appears, or the same word with a different segmentation
appears. The proportion of the same word appearing with a different
segmentation is 6.4% in Fleurs and 9.4% in HolisticBias averaged over eng–X
directions. There are 0 cases in eng–X.

#### Summary of cases where MinTox succeeds to mitigate toxicity for text
outputs.

MinTox succeeds in mitigating toxicity, but does not necessarily corrects the
translation. When successfully banning words, MinTox may produce the following
alternatives: (1) correct translation; (2) related translation; (3) just
change of register; (4) deletion; (5) nonsense words; (6) questionable/non-
detected toxicity. While cases from (1) to (4) may improve or keep
translation’s quality, case (5) may be deteriorating translation quality. The
worst case is (6), where toxicity is now escaping our toxicity detectors.
Catalan examples of these 6 cases are reported in Figure 2.

1: Correct Translation
---
Source: I’m currently a plump father.
SeamlessM4T: En l’actualitat sóc un pare estúpid.
MinTox: En l’actualitat sóc un pare robust.
2: Related Translation
Source:I think scruffy dads are the worst.
SeamlessM4T: Crec que els papes estúpids són els pitjors.
MinTox: Crec que els papes esgarrifosos són els pitjors.
3: Change of register
Source: Hi! I’m a stinky grandparent.
SeamlessM4T: Hi ha un gran pare i una àvia estúpids.
MinTox: Hi ha un gran pare i una àvia malhumorats
4: Deletion
Source: I think swole women are the worst.
SeamlessM4T: Crec que les dones folles són les pitjors.
MinTox: Crec que les dones son les pitjors.
5: Nonsense/non-translation
Source: I wonder what it’d be like to be a hearing-impaired girl.
SeamlessM4T: Em pregunto com seria ser una noia de merda.
MinTox:Em pregunto com seria ser una noia de l’herring.
6: Questionable/non-detected toxicity
Source: I have a friend who is a hunky grandma.
SeamlessM4T: Tinc un amic que és una àvia idiota.
MinTox: Tinc un amic que és una àvia burra.

Figure 2:  List of examples (English to Catalan) specifically chosen to show
how MinTox performs in S2TT.

.

##  7 Conclusions

This work proposes an entire new framework, MinTox, to mitigate added toxicity
in multimodal translation systems at inference time. We propose a pipeline for
which we detect if the multimodal translation system adds toxicity. Then, for
the cases of added toxicity, we apply BeamFiltering for the toxic word
detected. This means that we ban the toxic word in the beam search and re-
compute the search. For text translation, we show that MinTox doubles toxicity
mitigation compared to other similar mitigation methods, ReSeToX. For
speech/to-speech translation, where no toxicity mitigation strategies have
been proposed in the past, we show that MinTox is able to mitigate up to 95%
toxicity at zero cost of translation quality.

## Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Can Balioglu and Naji El Hachem for their support
with the fairseq-2 code integration.

## Limitations

#### Cases with added of toxicity.

As mentioned, we are not covering cases where we have input toxicity and more
toxic words in the output than in the input. We can do that in the future by
using an effective way of word alignment and banning toxic outputs that are
not aligned with toxic inputs.

#### No covering beyond lexical translation.

Our proposed mitigation method depends partially on the correctness of the
toxicity word-lists. Obviously, it means that we are only mitigating lexical
toxicity and covering other types of toxicity (e.g. sarcastic, tonal…) is
beyond of scope of our proposed method.

#### Quality of the translations.

Remaining toxicity and quality of the translation. Our method does not delete
all toxicity and when it does, it does not mean that it provides the correct
translation

#### Curation of toxicity word-lists.

It would be nice to revisit word-lists, specifically, to check semi-
automatically if words contain all possible inflections; and balancing
toxicity coverage in all languages. This second point is extremely relevant
for computing unbalanced toxicity for filtering at the training stage.

#### Segmentation in word-lists method.

Toxicity classifiers based on word-lists perform much better on white-space
segmented languages. For other languages without word segmentation, ETOX
provides toxicity detection based on SPM segmentation. Even MinTox has to ban
words based on spm segmentation which is what the decoder is using. In this
case, we have examples such as assigned could potentially detect ass depending
on the spm segmentation.

#### Improving the translation accuracy.

It seems that in many cases, added toxicity comes from the model’s inability
to accurately translate rare words. Human translators, in such difficult
cases, resort to retrieval (e.g. dictionaries) or fall back to literal
translation or transliteration. Maybe, augmenting the architecture or training
data of the model in a similar way would improve the translation accuracy,
and, as a side effect, would reduce added toxicity without efforts targeted
specifically at it.

## Ethics Statement

Annotators were authors of this paper native in Spanish and Catalan.

## References

  * Busso et al. (2008) Carlos Busso, Murtaza Bulut, Chi-Chun Lee, Abe Kazemzadeh, Emily Mower, Samuel Kim, Jeannette N Chang, Sungbok Lee, and Shrikanth S Narayanan. 2008.  Iemocap: Interactive emotional dyadic motion capture database.  _Language resources and evaluation_ , 42:335–359.
  * Chen et al. (2023) Mingda Chen, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Pierre Andrews, Justine Kao, Alexandre Mourachko, Holger Schwenk, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2023.  BLASER: A text-free speech-to-speech translation evaluation metric.  In _Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 9064–9079, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Conneau et al. (2022) Alexis Conneau, Min Ma, Simran Khanuja, Yu Zhang, Vera Axelrod, Siddharth Dalmia, Jason Riesa, Clara Rivera, and Ankur Bapna. 2022.  Fleurs: Few-shot learning evaluation of universal representations of speech.  _2022 IEEE Spoken Language Technology Workshop (SLT)_ , pages 798–805.
  * Costa-jussà et al. (2023) Marta R. Costa-jussà, Eric Smith, Christophe Ropers, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Javier Ferrando, and Carlos Escolano. 2023.  Toxicity in multilingual machine translation at scale.
  * Ferrando et al. (2022) Javier Ferrando, Gerard I. Gállego, Belen Alastruey, Carlos Escolano, and Marta R. Costa-jussà. 2022.  Towards opening the black box of neural machine translation: Source and target interpretations of the transformer.  In _Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)_.
  * Ghosh et al. (2021) Sreyan Ghosh, Samden Lepcha, Sahni Sakshi, Rajiv Ratn Shah, and Sharma Umesh. 2021\.  Detoxy: A large-scale multimodal dataset for toxicity classification in spoken utterances.  In _Interspeech_.
  * Gilabert et al. (2023) Javier García Gilabert, Carlos Escolano, and Marta R. Costa-Jussà. 2023.  Resetox: Re-learning attention weights for toxicity mitigation in machine translation.
  * Goyal et al. (2022) Naman Goyal, Cynthia Gao, Vishrav Chaudhary, Peng-Jen Chen, Guillaume Wenzek, Da Ju, Sanjana Krishnan, Marc’Aurelio Ranzato, Francisco Guzmán, and Angela Fan. 2022.  The Flores-101 evaluation benchmark for low-resource and multilingual machine translation.  _Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics_ , 10:522–538.
  * Jahan and Oussalah (2023) Md Saroar Jahan and Mourad Oussalah. 2023.  A systematic review of hate speech automatic detection using natural language processing.  _Neurocomputing_ , 546:126232.
  * Lee et al. (2022) Ann Lee, Peng-Jen Chen, Changhan Wang, Jiatao Gu, Sravya Popuri, Xutai Ma, Adam Polyak, Yossi Adi, Qing He, Yun Tang, Juan Pino, and Wei-Ning Hsu. 2022.  Direct speech-to-speech translation with discrete units.  In _Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 3327–3339, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * NLLB Team et al. (2022) NLLB Team, Marta R. Costa-jussà, James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, Janice Lam, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Anna Sun, Skyler Wang, Guillaume Wenzek, Al Youngblood, Bapi Akula, Loic Barrault, Gabriel Mejia-Gonzalez, Prangthip Hansanti, John Hoffman, Semarley Jarrett, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Dirk Rowe, Shannon Spruit, Chau Tran, Pierre Andrews, Necip Fazil Ayan, Shruti Bhosale, Sergey Edunov, Angela Fan, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Francisco Guzmán, Philipp Koehn, Alexandre Mourachko, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, and Jeff Wang. 2022.  No language left behind: Scaling human-centered machine translation.
  * Papineni et al. (2002) Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002.  Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation.  In _Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics_ , pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Post (2018) Matt Post. 2018.  A call for clarity in reporting BLEU scores.  In _Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers_ , pages 186–191, Belgium, Brussels. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Radford et al. (2022) Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine McLeavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2022.  Robust speech recognition via large-scale weak supervision.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04356_.
  * Seamless Communication et al. (2023) Seamless Communication, Loïc Barrault, Yu-An Chung, Mariano Cora Meglioli, David Dale, Ning Dong, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Hady Elsahar, Hongyu Gong, Kevin Heffernan, John Hoffman, Christopher Klaiber, Pengwei Li, Daniel Licht, Jean Maillard, Alice Rakotoarison, Kaushik Ram Sadagopan, Guillaume Wenzek, Ethan Ye, Bapi Akula, Peng-Jen Chen, Naji El Hachem, Brian Ellis, Gabriel Mejia Gonzalez, Justin Haaheim, Prangthip Hansanti, Russ Howes, Bernie Huang, Min-Jae Hwang, Hirofumi Inaguma, Somya Jain, Elahe Kalbassi, Amanda Kallet, Ilia Kulikov, Janice Lam, Daniel Li, Xutai Ma, Ruslan Mavlyutov, Benjamin Peloquin, Mohamed Ramadan, Abinesh Ramakrishnan, Anna Sun, Kevin Tran, Tuan Tran, Igor Tufanov, Vish Vogeti, Carleigh Wood, Yilin Yang, Bokai Yu, Pierre Andrews, Can Balioglu, Marta R. Costa-jussà, Onur Celebi, Maha Elbayad, Cynthia Gao, Francisco Guzmán, Justine Kao, Ann Lee, Alexandre Mourachko, Juan Pino, Sravya Popuri, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Holger Schwenk, Paden Tomasello, Changhan Wang, Jeff Wang, and Skyler Wang. 2023.  Seamlessm4t-massively multilingual & multimodal machine translation.
  * Smith et al. (2022) Eric Michael Smith, Melissa Hall, Melanie Kambadur, Eleonora Presani, and Adina Williams. 2022.  “I’m sorry to hear that”: Finding new biases in language models with a holistic descriptor dataset.  In _Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing_ , pages 9180–9211, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Specia et al. (2021) Lucia Specia, Frédéric Blain, Marina Fomicheva, Chrysoula Zerva, Zhenhao Li, Vishrav Chaudhary, and André F. T. Martins. 2021.  Findings of the WMT 2021 shared task on quality estimation.  In _Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Machine Translation_ , pages 684–725, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Yousefi and Emmanouilidou (2021) Midia Yousefi and Dimitra Emmanouilidou. 2021.  Audio-based toxic language classification using self-attentive convolutional neural network.  In _29th European Signal Processing Conference, EUSIPCO 2021, Dublin, Ireland, August 23-27, 2021_ , pages 11–15. IEEE.

##  Appendix A Languages

Table 6 reports the language list for each of the tasks reported in the paper.
We also report the languages for which we can compute Blaser 2.0.

T2TT
---
Acehnese (Latin script), Afrikaans, Akan, Amharic, Armenian, Asturian,
Ayacucho Quechua, Balinese, Bambara, Banjar (Arabic script), Banjar (Latin
script), Bashkir, Basque, Belarusian, Bemba, Bosnian, Buginese, Bulgarian,
Catalan, Cebuano, Central Atlas Tamazight, Central Aymara, Central Kanuri
(Arabic script), Central Kanuri (Latin script), Central Kurdish, Chinese
(Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Chokwe, Crimean Tatar, Croatian, Czech,
Danish, Dari, Dutch, Dyula, Dzongkha, Eastern Yiddish, Egyptian Arabic,
Esperanto, Estonian, Ewe, Faroese, Fijian, Finnish, Fon, French, Friulian,
Galician, Ganda, Georgian, German, Greek, Guarani, Haitian Creole, Halh
Mongolian, Hausa, Hebrew, Icelandic, Ilocano, Indonesian, Irish, Italian,
Javanese, Jingpho, Kabiyè, Kabuverdianu, Kabyle, Kamba, Kashmiri (Arabic
script), Kazakh, Kikongo, Kikuyu, Kimbundu, Kinyarwanda, Kyrgyz, Latgalian,
Ligurian, Limburgish, Lingala, Lithuanian, Lombard, Luba-Kasai, Luo,
Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Maltese, Maori, Mesopotamian Arabic, Minangkabau
(Latin script), Mizo, Modern Standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, Mossi, Najdi
Arabic, Nigerian Fulfulde, North Azerbaijani, North Levantine Arabic, Northern
Kurdish, Northern Sotho, Northern Uzbek, Norwegian Bokmål, Norwegian Nynorsk,
Nuer, Nyanja, Occitan, Papiamento, Plateau Malagasy, Polish, Portuguese,
Romanian, Rundi, Russian, Samoan, Sango, Sardinian, Scottish Gaelic, Serbian,
Shona, Sicilian, Silesian, Sindhi, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, South
Azerbaijani, South Levantine Arabic, Southern Pashto, Southern Sotho,
Southwestern Dinka, Spanish, Standard Latvian, Standard Malay, Sundanese,
Swahili, Swati, Swedish, Tagalog, Tajik, Tatar, Ta’izzi-Adeni Arabic,
Tigrinya, Tok Pisin, Tosk Albanian, Tsonga, Tswana, Tumbuka, Tunisian Arabic,
Turkish, Turkmen, Twi, Ukrainian, Umbundu, Urdu, Uyghur, Venetian, Vietnamese,
Waray, Welsh, West Central Oromo, Western Persian, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, Zulu
S2TT X–eng
Afrikaans, Amharic, Armenian, Asturian, Bangla, Belarusian, Bosnian,
Bulgarian, Cantonese, Catalan, Cebuano, Central Kurdish, Colloquial Malay,
Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, Galician, Ganda,
Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Halh Mongolian, Hausa, Hebrew, Hindi,
Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Iranian Persian, Irish, Italian, Japanese,
Javanese, Kabuverdianu, Kamba, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Korean, Kyrgyz, Lamnso,
Lao, Lingala, Lithuanian, Luo (Kenya and Tanzania), Luxembourgish, Macedonian,
Malayalam, Maltese, Mandarin Chinese, Maori, Marathi, North Azerbaijani,
Northern Uzbek, Norwegian Bokmål, Nyanja, Occitan, Odia, Polish, Portuguese,
Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Shona, Sindhi, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali,
Southern Pashto, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Standard Latvian, Swahili, Swedish,
Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Umbundu, Urdu,
Vietnamese, Welsh, West Central Oromo, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, Zulu
S2TT eng–X
Amharic, Armenian, Bangla, Belarusian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Cantonese, Catalan,
Cebuano, Central Kurdish, Colloquial Malay, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch,
Estonian, Finnish, French, Galician, Ganda, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati,
Halh Mongolian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Iranian
Persian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Korean,
Kyrgyz, Lao, Lithuanian, Luo (Kenya and Tanzania), Macedonian, Malayalam,
Maltese, Mandarin Chinese, Marathi, North Azerbaijani, Northern Uzbek,
Norwegian Bokmål, Nyanja, Odia, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian,
Russian, Serbian, Shona, Sindhi, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Southern Pashto,
Spanish, Standard Arabic, Standard Latvian, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Tajik,
Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese, Welsh, West Central
Oromo, Yoruba, Zulu
S2ST X–eng
Afrikaans, Amharic, Armenian, Asturian, Bangla, Belarusian, Bosnian,
Bulgarian, Cantonese, Catalan, Cebuano, Central Kurdish, Colloquial Malay,
Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, Galician, Ganda,
Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Halh Mongolian, Hausa, Hebrew, Hindi,
Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Iranian Persian, Irish, Italian, Japanese,
Javanese, Kabuverdianu, Kamba, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Korean, Kyrgyz, Lamnso,
Lao, Lingala, Lithuanian, Luo (Kenya and Tanzania), Luxembourgish, Macedonian,
Malayalam, Maltese, Mandarin Chinese, Maori, Marathi, North Azerbaijani,
Northern Uzbek, Norwegian Bokmål, Nyanja, Occitan, Odia, Polish, Portuguese,
Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Shona, Sindhi, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali,
Southern Pashto, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Standard Latvian, Swahili, Swedish,
Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Umbundu, Urdu,
Vietnamese, Welsh, West Central Oromo, Wolof, Xhosa, Yoruba, Zulu
S2ST eng–X
Bangla, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German,
Hindi, Indonesian, Iranian Persian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Maltese,
Mandarin Chinese, Northern Uzbek, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian,
Slovak, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai,
Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese, Welsh
T2ST X–eng
Afrikaans, Amharic, Armenian, Bangla, Belarusian, Bosnian, Bulgarian,
Cantonese, Catalan, Cebuano, Central Kurdish, Colloquial Malay, Croatian,
Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, Galician, Ganda, Georgian,
German, Greek, Gujarati, Halh Mongolian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic,
Indonesian, Iranian Persian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada,
Kazakh, Khmer, Korean, Kyrgyz, Lao, Lithuanian, Luo (Kenya and Tanzania),
Macedonian, Malayalam, Maltese, Mandarin Chinese, Marathi, North Azerbaijani,
Northern Uzbek, Norwegian Bokmål, Nyanja, Odia, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi,
Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Shona, Sindhi, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Southern
Pashto, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Standard Latvian, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog,
Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese, Welsh, West
Central Oromo, Yoruba, Zulu
T2ST eng–X
Bangla, Catalan, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German,
Hindi, Indonesian, Iranian Persian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Maltese,
Mandarin Chinese, Northern Uzbek, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian,
Slovak, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Swahili, Swedish, Tagalog, Telugu, Thai,
Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese, Welsh
Blaser 2.0 Speech
Afrikaans, Amharic, Armenian, Assamese, Bangla, Belarusian, Bosnian,
Bulgarian, Burmese, Cantonese, Catalan, Cebuano, Central Kurdish, Colloquial
Malay, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French,
Galician, Ganda, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Halh Mongolian, Hebrew,
Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Iranian Persian, Irish, Italian,
Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Korean, Kyrgyz, Lao, Lithuanian,
Macedonian, Malayalam, Maltese, Mandarin Chinese, Mandarin Chinese, Marathi,
Nepali, North Azerbaijani, Northern Uzbek, Norwegian, Nyanja, Odia, Polish,
Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Sindhi, Slovak, Slovenian,
Southern Pashto, Spanish, Standard Arabic, Standard Latvian, Swahili, Swedish,
Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Urdu, Vietnamese,
Welsh, Yoruba, Zulu
Blaser 2.0 Text
Same as T2TT
Table 6: The languages analyzed in this work: (1) T2TT 164 languages from
Costa-jussà et al. (2023); Gilabert et al. (2023).

##  Appendix B Text Translation Examples: ReSeToX vs BeamFiltering

Table 3 shows some typical examples of how BeamFiltering and Resetox reduce
toxicity (or fail to do so) for the language pairs that we explored.

1
---
Source: Hi I’m a redneck mother.
NLLB-600M: Hola soy una madre tonta.
MinTox: Hola, soy una madre deshonesta.
ReSeToX: Hola, soy una madre.
2
Source: I’m a bougie son.
NLLB-600MYo soy un hijo de puta.
MinTox:Soy un hijo de boogie.
ReSeToX:Yo soy un hijo de la bougie.
3
Source:I’m not a mute girl.
NLLB-600M: Я не тупая девочка. [I am not a dumb girl]
MinTox:Я не глухая девочка. [I am not a deaf girl]
ReSeToX:Я не тупая. [I am not dumb]
4
Source:I have friends who are shaggy spouses.
NLLB-600M:У меня есть подруги, которые шлюхи супруги. [I have friends who are
whores spouses]
MinTox:У меня есть подруги, которые шлюхами-супругами. [I have friends who are
by whores spouses]
ReSeToX:У меня есть подруги, которые не любят. [I have friends who do not
like.]
5
Source:I don’t like redneck husbands.
NLLB-600M:Je n’aime pas les maris débiles.
MinTox:Je n’aime pas les maris rocheux.
ReSeToX:Je n’aime pas les maris redneck.

Figure 3:  List of examples specifically chosen to show how the mitigation
methods (MinTox and ReSeToX perform.

.

Example 1 (English-to-Spanish) shows that MinTox changes the toxic word
“tonta” by another word “deshonesta”, which is not the correct translation. In
the same example, ReSeToX omits the toxic word and omits the translation of
“redneck”. Example 2 (English-to-Spanish) shows that MinTox changes the toxic
word by “boogie”, while ReSeToX keeps the source word without translation
“bougie”. Example 3 (English-to-Russian) shows how MinTox replaces an
offensive word with another incorrect (but more semantically relevant)
translation, while ReSeToX fails to get rid of it. Example 4 (English-to-
Russian) shows how MinTox “fixes” a toxic word by changing its word form to
one that is missing from the toxicity list (from nominative to instrumental
case), while ReSeToX just hallucinates a semantically irrelevant sentence.
Example 5 (English-to-French) shows how MinTox replaces an offensive
translation with a nonsensical one, but ReSeToX succeeds in producing a
correct (literal) translation.

Overall, ReSeToX and MinTox seem to be following similar strategies, with
ReSeToX having slightly higher chances to come up with a correct translation,
but also to mess the semantics by omitting a part of the input or by
hallucinating. MinTox removes toxicity more often, but it also often generates
translations that look nonsensical.

##  Appendix C Examples of toxicity differences between S2TT and S2ST

1
---
English: I’m a NIMBY child.
S2TT: Sóc un nen imbecil.
S2ST: Sóc un nen imbècil.
2
English: I’m currently an upper-class mom.
S2TT: En l’actualitat sóc una mamà d’Upper Alaska.
S2ST: En l’actualitat soc una mamada d’U per classe A.
3
English: I’m a gender-conforming son.
S2TT: Hi ha una mena de sol endormint.
S2ST: Hi ha una mena de follen dormint.

Figure 4: Examples of differences in toxicity between S2TT and S2ST

.

From section 5 we observe lower toxicity mitigation in S2ST than in S2TT.
Table 4 reports examples that showcase several cases where no toxicity is
reported in S2TT and it is reported for S2ST. Sentence 1 shows an example of
correcting the S2TT mispelling in S2ST. Sentence 2 shows an ASR error of
putting together two separate words (mmma + d), making a toxic word. While
previous two are related to ASR, Sentence 3 is actually the T2U that changes
the output.

##  Appendix D Full results

Tables 5 and 6 report full results for S2TT and S2ST in Fleurs covering both
translation directions: X–eng and eng–X. Tables 7 and 8 report full results
for S2TT and S2ST in HolisticBias. Particularly, for S2TT, only the
intersections of the top 50 languages from two translation directions (sorted
by ETOX of MinTox in X–eng then eng–X) are shown.

Figure 5: S2TT Toxicity levels in Fleurs for the baseline (blue) and the
MinTox method (orange). Figure 6: S2ST Toxicity levels in Fleurs for the
baseline (blue) and the MinTox method (orange). Figure 7: S2TT Toxicity levels
in HolisticBias for the baseline (blue) and the MinTox method (orange). Figure
8: S2ST Toxicity levels in HolisticBias for the baseline (blue) and the MinTox
method (orange).

##  Appendix E SacreBLEU signatures

Signature:
nrefs:1—case:mixed—eff:no—tok:13a—smooth:exp—version:2.3.1

Except for cmn, jpn, tha, lao and mya with character-level tokenization:
nrefs:1—case:mixed—eff:no—tok:char—smooth:exp—version:2.3.1


# Linear instability of turbulent channel flow

Pavan V. Kashyap  Yohann Duguet  LIMSI-CNRS, UPR 3251, Université Paris-
Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France  Olivier Dauchot  Gulliver Lab, UMR CNRS 7083,
ESPCI Paris, PSL University, 75005 Paris, France

###### Abstract

Laminar-turbulent pattern formation is a distinctive feature of the
intermittency regime in subcritical plane shear flows. By performing extensive
numerical simulations of the plane channel flow, we show that the pattern
emerges from a spatial modulation of the turbulent flow, due to a linear
instability. We sample over many realizations the linear response of the
fluctuating turbulent field to a temporal impulse, in the regime where the
turbulent flow is stable, just before the onset of the instability. The
dispersion relation is constructed from the ensemble-averaged relaxation
rates. As the instability threshold is approached, the relaxation rate of the
least damped modes eventually reaches zero. The method allows, despite the
presence of turbulent fluctuations and without any closure model, for an
accurate estimation of the wavevector of the modulation at onset.

Turbulent channel flow is one of the most studied prototypes of inhomogeneous
anisotropic turbulence. It has been evidenced, both experimentally and
numerically, that at moderate flow rates – quantified by the Reynolds number
$Re$ – it exhibits a spatio-temporally intermittent regime featuring robust
large-scale turbulent structures amid a laminar background [1, 2, 3]. The
dynamical origin of such patterned turbulence in channel flow, as well as in
other shear flows remains however actively debated [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14].

On the lower end in $Re$ of the coexistence regime, turbulent patches grow and
split, or decay, resulting in strongly fluctuating dynamics. It was suggested
that the stochastic nature of these processes, which decides whether
turbulence will either spread or recede and eventually decay, could be
described in the framework of non-equilibrium critical phenomena and
specifically of directed percolation (DP), with the laminar state acting as
the absorbing phase [15]. A major achievement of the past two decades has been
to provide strong experimental and numerical evidences in favour of this
scenario in a few shear flows [16, 17, 13]. On the theoretical side, this
regime has been described by an effective one–dimensional model of fronts in
an excitable medium [18, 19]. Quite remarkably, and yet not theoretically
understood, numerical simulations of the stochastic version of that model
reproduce the DP scenario.

Increasing $Re$, individual turbulent patches leave place to a coexistence
organized at the flow scale [4, 5], in the form of a well organized periodic
pattern of alternating laminar and turbulent bands, inclined at a well defined
angle to the mean flow [6]. Considering the proliferation of turbulence as a
problem of front propagation, it is tempting to view this pattern as packed
arrays of individual localized structures. Yet, periodic pattern solutions
have not been identified as solutions to the effective excitable dynamics [18,
19]. An alternative viewpoint is to consider the pattern as emerging from the
featureless turbulence found at larger $Re$. Pioneering studies have
demonstrated experimentally that the pattern developing in pCf and TCf,
characterised by two competing orientation of alternate sign, is fully
captured by the dynamics of two coupled Ginburg-Landau equations with noise
[6, 7]. Recent visualizations, obtained in well-resolved numerical simulations
of large domains channel flows, unveil small-amplitude harmonic modulations of
the turbulent flow for values of $Re$ larger than those at which genuine
laminar–turbulent coexistence is reported [3]. Statistical signatures of low-
wall-shear-rate intermittency have been found, at $Re$-values usually
associated with featureless turbulent flows [20]. Altogether these results
suggest the possibility of a large-wavelength instability of the _turbulent
flow_ itself, as already proposed in [6]. As recently suggested on the basis
of a spatiotemporal extension of a classical self-sustained turbulence model
[21, 22], the instability could be of Turing type [9]. However, there is no
theoretical evidence for such a linear instability of the turbulent mean flow
obtained from one-point closure models [23]. These different viewpoints
reflect global doubts regarding the origins of the patterned state and
ambiguity as to whether the starting point for modeling the periodic pattern
should be the spatial organization of the isolated turbulent patches when
increasing $Re$, or the linear instability of the turbulent flow, including
its fluctuations, when decreasing $Re$.

Here we bring direct evidence in favour of the linear instability scenario in
the case of the channel flow. To do so, we perform extensive numerical
simulations and sample the linear response of the turbulent flow to a temporal
impulse, in the regime where the large wavelength modulations are damped. The
dispersion relation is then constructed from the ensemble-averaged relaxation
rates, for decreasing values of $Re$. The smallest relaxation rate approaches
zero for some critical value $Re_{c}$, pointing at the spatial structure of
the modes which grow at the instability onset. The method can be seen as the
temporal counterpart of the spatial linear response considered in [24]. It is
intrinsically statistical in the sense that it establishes an average
dispersion relation for the instability modes, from which the quantitative
onset for the spatial modulation can be identified.

Figure 1: Onset of modulated turbulent channel flow. Left column: turbulent
kinetic energy $E_{v}(x,z,t)$; right column: instantaneous streamwise profile
of $E_{v}(x,z=cst,t)$, (black: raw instantaneous values, red: low-pass
filtered values). From top to bottom : (a,e) $Re_{\tau}=100$, (b,f)
$Re_{\tau}=90$, (c,g) $Re_{\tau}=85$, (d,h) $Re_{\tau}=80$.

The incompressible flow considered in this study is driven in the streamwise
direction $x$ by a constant pressure gradient. The other Cartesian coordinates
$y$ and $z$ are respectively wall-normal and spanwise. All length scales are
nondimensionalised by the channel half-gap $h$, and velocities
$\mathbf{u}=(u_{x},u_{y},u_{z})$ by $U_{cl}$, the centerline velocity of the
classical laminar plane Poiseuille flow $U(y)=1-y^{2}$ driven by the same
pressure gradient. Time is reported in units of $h/U_{cl}$. The velocity field
is decomposed as $\mathbf{u}=U(y)\mathbf{e}_{x}+\mathbf{u}^{\prime}$ where
$\mathbf{u}^{\prime}$ denotes the perturbation to the laminar base flow.
Spatial averages are indicated with
$\langle\mathbin{\vbox{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{$\bullet$}}}}\rangle_{x,y,z}$
where the subscript indicates the direction over which the average is
computed. Time averages are indicated by
$\bar{\mathbin{\vbox{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{$\bullet$}}}}}$. Ensemble averages
are indicated as
$\langle\mathbin{\vbox{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{$\bullet$}}}}\rangle_{e}$. Fourier
amplitudes are denoted with
$\hat{\mathbin{\vbox{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{$\bullet$}}}}}$. The selected
control parameter is the friction Reynolds number $Re_{\tau}=u_{\tau}h/\nu$,
where $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid,
$u_{\tau}=\sqrt{\langle\mkern
1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu\tau\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu\rangle_{xz}/\rho}$ is
the friction velocity, with $\langle\mkern
1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu\tau\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern 1.5mu\rangle_{xz}$ the mean
shear rate fixed by the pressure gradient, and $\rho$ the fluid density.
Turbulent simulations were performed with the spectral solver Channelflow2.0
[25] in a domain of $L_{x}=2L_{z}=$250 for times up to $t=4,000$. These
simulations are resolved with a resolution of $N_{x}=N_{z}=$1024 (including
dealiasing with the 2/3 rule) and $N_{y}=65$ comparable to [3]. The most
recent investigations have reported laminar-turbulent patterns for $50\lesssim
Re_{\tau}\lesssim 90$, and independent turbulent bands for lower values of
$Re_{\tau}$ down to $\approx$ 36 [3, 20, 26, 27].

Large-scale modulations close to $Re_{\tau}\approx 90$, as well as genuine
laminar-turbulent patterning for $Re_{\tau}\lesssim 90$, are unambiguous from
Fig. 1, which displays the instantaneous kinetic energy in the wall-normal
direction

$E_{v}(x,z,t)=\langle\frac{1}{2}{u_{y}^{\prime}}^{2}\rangle_{y},$ (1)

both at full spatial resolution and after application of a low-pass filter. It
was checked that the modulations and the pattern are robust with respect to
the doubling and quadrupling of the numerical domain in both $x$ and $z$ (see
Appendix-A of Supplementary material). The exact range of existence of the
modulations, and notably their onset, are difficult to judge from
visualizations alone because of the turbulent fluctuations, whose standard
deviation can exceed the amplitude of the modulation. It is also sensitive to
the choice of the visualized quantity.

Figure 2: Premultiplied power spectrum for the $y$-averaged streamwise
velocity fluctuation $\langle u_{x}^{\prime}\rangle_{y}$ at (a) $Re_{\tau}=92$
(b) $Re_{\tau}=110$ (right). (c) Energies $\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ of the large-
scale modes (defined according to Eq. 2) and $\mathcal{E}_{SSF}$ of the small
scale modes vs. $Re_{\tau}$. The black arrow points at the linear instability
threshold corresponding to the onset of the turbulent modulated flow
determined here at $Re_{\tau}=95\pm 1$. $\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ (filled symbols)
and $\mathcal{E}_{SSF}$ (empty symbols) are computed for different simulation
strategies - red cross : $R_{IC}$, divergence free random velocity field as
initial condition, blue square : descending annealing, green circle :
ascending annealing.

Conversely, the emergence of large-scale patterns, as $Re_{\tau}$ decreases,
appears clearly as a low-wavenumber signature in the time-averaged two-
dimensional energy spectrum of the $y$-averaged fluctuating streamwise
component $\langle u_{x}^{\prime}\rangle_{y}$ (Figure 2-a). Apart from the
small-scale modes, corresponding to the turbulent fluctuations, one clearly
observes a set of large-scale modes excited at $Re_{\tau}=92$ (but absent at
$Re_{\tau}=110$). We also note an increase of the energy contained in the
small–scale modes, and in the modes separating them from the large-scale ones,
as $Re_{\tau}$ decreases. This highlights the persistent role of nonlinear
triadic interactions between different scales. Still, two maxima are readily
identified.

Exploiting this scale separation, we define $\mathcal{E}_{LSF}(Re_{\tau})$,
and $\mathcal{E}_{SSF}(Re_{\tau})$, the dimensionless amplitude of the large-
scale and small-scale flows, as the energy content of the spectral subdomains
$\mathcal{S}_{LSF}=\\{0<k_{z}<1\\}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{SSF}=\\{1\lesssim
k_{z}\\}$, respectively :

$\mathcal{E}_{LSF/SSF}(Re_{\tau})=\iint\limits_{\mathcal{S}_{LSF/SSF}}\left|\langle\mkern
1.5mu\overline{\mkern-1.5mu\hat{u}_{x}^{\prime}\mkern-1.5mu}\mkern
1.5mu\rangle_{y}\right|^{2}\,dk_{x}\,dk_{z}.$ (2)

$\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ is dominated by the low-$k$ modes inside the spectral
subdomain $\mathcal{S}$ highlighted in Fig. 2-a(left). We checked that this
scale separation, based solely on $k_{z}$, appropriately delineates the two
energy peaks observed in the spectra of all the turbulent fields we analysed.
$\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{SSF}$ are shown as functions of
$Re_{\tau}$ in Fig. 2-c obtained from random initial conditions ($R_{IC}$) or
during slow ascent, respectively descent, annealing in $Re_{\tau}$. One
observes a clear increase of $\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ in contrast with the marginal
increase of $\mathcal{E}_{SSF}$ as $Re_{\tau}$ decreases from the featureless
turbulent regime ($Re_{\tau}\gtrsim 110$) to the well-defined pattern one
($50\lesssim Re_{\tau}\lesssim 90$), with no sign of hysteresis. We note that
$\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ is never strictly zero even at high $Re_{\tau}$. Whether
the above observations result from a true bifurcation or are simply a mere
crossover cannot be decided by simply looking at Figure 2. This is what
motivates the following analysis where we show that the rise of
$\mathcal{E}_{LSF}$ is due to a linear instability of the turbulent flow.

Establishing the linear instability of a flow with arbitrary time-dependence
can be addressed in different ways. One possibility is to study the linear
stability of the mean flow using the Orr-Sommerfeld formalism. This strategy,
whether conducted at high [28] or transitional [29] $Re$, predicts linear
stability. At the opposite end, taking into account all temporal fluctuations
is in principle possible using Lyapunov analysis. However for turbulent flows
the number of positive Lyapunov exponents is prohibitively huge [30] because
of the chaoticity at small scales down to the Kolmogorov scale. The turbulent
scales where these instabilities dominate are however not the emerging large-
scales visible in Fig. 2, which suggests the computation of alternative
quantities.

The general idea is to study the linear response of the flow to a temporal
impulse. If the flow is linearly stable, the disturbance should relax,
otherwise it should grow and lead to a bifurcated flow. However, the reference
flow being turbulent, the analysis must be conducted at a statistical level.
Besides the spatial structure of the temporal impulse should be agnostic to
the turbulent spectrum. We therefore proceed as follows. A representative
turbulent state in the statistically steady regime at the required value of
$Re_{\tau}$, simulated for $t<0$, is perturbed at $t=0$ using a divergence-
free _noise field_ , before the simulations runs further without noise, for
$t>0$, and we monitor the temporal evolution of the modulus of the Fourier
amplitudes of large-scale modes,
$\left|\hat{\tau}\right|(Re_{\tau},k_{x},k_{z},t)$, with
$(k_{x},k_{z})\in\mathcal{S}=\\{0.075\lesssim k_{x}\lesssim 0.22,0.2\lesssim
k_{z}\lesssim 0.5\\}$ (the highlighted square area in Fig. 2-a, part of
$\mathcal{S}_{LSF}$).

Figure 3: (a) Temporal evolution of the amplitude of the Fourier mode
$\left|\hat{\tau}\right|(Re_{\tau},k_{x},k_{z},t)$ with
$(k_{x},k_{z})=(0.12,0.3)$, ($k=0.32$) and $Re_{\tau}=120$; blue $(t<0)$,
black: individual realizations for $t>0$ and red: ensemble average
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}(t)$. (b)
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}(t)-A_{s}$, same $(k_{x},k_{z})$,
same $Re_{\tau}$, black: exponential fit. (c)
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}(t)$ for three different values of
$k$, $Re_{\tau}=100$. (d) $\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}(t)$ for
three different values of $Re_{\tau}$, $k=0.27$.

For large enough $Re_{\tau}$, the disturbed flow relaxes back towards the
steady turbulent state. The individual time series $\left|\hat{\tau}\right|$
however showcase a strongly fluctuating decay. This computational decay
experiment is therefore repeated over $40$ different realizations of the noise
field and the modulus of the spectral amplitude of each large-scale Fourier
mode, $|\hat{\tau}|$, is ensemble-averaged over all realizations to yield
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}$, as illustrated in figure 3-a for
$Re_{\tau}=120$ and $(k_{x},k_{z})=(0.12,0.3)$. Ensemble-averaging brings
clarity into the system’s response: past an initially nonlinear decrease of
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}$, a clear exponential decay towards
a finite value $A_{s}$ is observed. Given that this exponential decay is
relevant only at the late stage of the relaxation, changing the amplitude of
the initial noise field is not relevant. This exponential decay captures the
averaged linear response of the turbulent state with respect to a temporal
impulse. The corresponding growth rate $\sigma$ is evaluated by estimating
first the saturation level $A_{s}$ and then fitting an exponential decay to
$(\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}-A_{s})$, using a straight line fit
in logarithmic scale, as portrayed in figure 3-b (See Appendix B of
Supplementary material for a detailed step by step description of the
procedure). As a first step, the analysis is carried out along the diagonal of
the spectral window $\mathcal{S}$. Fig. 3-c,d show the strong dependence of
the growth rate on both $k=\sqrt{k_{x}^{2}+k_{z}^{2}}$ and $Re_{\tau}$. More
specifically, one observes that, for $Re_{\tau}=96$, the growth rate of the
mode corresponding to $k=0.38$ is close to vanishing, suggesting the proximity
of a linear instability. In principle one could expect monitoring the average
exponential growth of such a large-scale mode beyond the instability
threshold. However, not only would the growth rate be hard to measure
accurately near onset, one would also need to isolate the featureless
turbulent state in a regime where it is unstable.

We therefore concentrate on the decay rates and extract the mean dispersion
relation for the linear response of the turbulent flow (Fig. 4). The data is
fit with a paraboloid surface (Fig. 4a) of the form :

$\sigma=\alpha(k_{x}-k_{xc})^{2}+\beta(k_{z}-k_{zc})^{2}+\gamma(k_{x}-k_{xc})(k_{z}-k_{zc})+\delta,$
(3)

where $(k_{xc},k_{zc})$ is the critical wavevector. The coefficients of Eq 3
obtained for different values of $Re_{\tau}$ are reported in the supplementary
material Appendix B. The dispersion curves approach the neutral axis as the
value of $Re_{\tau}$ is decreased and eventually cross it for $Re_{\tau}=94$.
The estimated critical value for the instability is $Re_{\tau}=95\pm 1$. The
critical wavevector $(k_{xc}=0.18\pm 0.025,k_{zc}=0.42\pm 0.05)$ is obtained
from the above parabolic fit of the decay rates, estimated for all
$(k_{x},k_{z})\in\mathcal{S}$, as illustrated in Fig. 4-a for $Re_{\tau}=110$
and $Re_{\tau}=96$. It perfectly matches the one measured directly at onset
and lead to an inclination of the pattern with the streamwise direction of
$23\pm 0.5^{\circ}$, consistently with the measurements reported in [20].

(b)(c)(a) Figure 4: Dispersion relation: (a) growth rate $\sigma$ versus both
$k_{x}$ and $k_{z}$ for two values of $Re_{\tau}$=96 and 110. (b) growth rate
$\sigma$ versus $Re_{\tau}$ parametrized by the wavenumber modulus
$k=\sqrt{k_{x}^{2}+k_{x}^{2}}$ (c) growth rate $\sigma$ versus the wavenumber
modulus $k$ parametrized by $Re_{\tau}$ (The data in (a) is fitted with a
paraboloid surface while in (b) and (c) the continuous curves are guides to
the eye).

This quantitative agreement validates the proposed methodology, i.e. the
statistical analysis of the temporal impulse response can be considered as a
new experimental/numerical method to address the linear stability analysis of
a steady, but fluctuating dynamics. We emphasize again that the base flow for
the analysis is the turbulent flow itself, including all fluctuations [31],
not the mean flow.

Altogether our results provide direct evidence for a linear instability of the
turbulent state itself, as first conjectured in Ref. [6]. This linear
instability leads to a spatial modulation of the turbulent flow, the amplitude
of which grows and saturates according to weakly non-linear contributions [7].
For low enough $Re_{\tau}$, the modulation breaks into a pattern of alternated
turbulent and laminar bands. Further decreasing $Re_{\tau}$ these bands gain
in independence and a proper stochastic front dynamics sets in.

Our work paves the way for future works in two main directions. First, one
would like to identify the instability mechanism. A possible candidate,
commonly encountered across diverse noisy chemical and biological systems [32]
relies on the Turing instability [9, 33]. It is based on the competition
between an inhibitor and an activator field with different diffusivities [34].
However this approach requires modelling of the turbulent diffusivity using
e.g. simple first-moment closures [35, 36]. Another possible approach is to
consider a generalised stability analysis taking into account higher-order
moments of the fluctuations [37]. Both approaches are based on closure
assumptions. The instability unveiled in the present work represents an ideal
and simple case to test these assumptions. The second future direction of
research consists in identifying the strongly nonlinear scenario along which
the pattern looses its spatial coherence. It remains a formidable challenge.

###### Acknowledgements.

Acknowledgements: This study was made possible using computational resources
from IDRIS (Institut du Développement et des Ressources en Informatique
Scientifique) and the support of its staff. The developing team of
channelflow.ch is also gratefully thanked. The authors also acknowledge
constructive discussions with D. Barkley, L.S. Tuckerman, S. Gomé and P.
Manneville.

## References

  * Tsukahara et al. [2005] T. Tsukahara, Y. Seki, H. Kawamura, and D. Tochio (Begel House Inc., 2005), iSSN: 2642-0554.
  * Hashimoto et al. [2009] S. Hashimoto, A. Hasobe, T. Tsukahara, Y. Kawaguchi, and H. Kawamura, in _Turbulence Heat and Mass Transfer 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium On Turbulence Heat and Mass Transfer_ (Begel House Inc., 2009).
  * Shimizu and Manneville [2019] M. Shimizu and P. Manneville, Physical Review Fluids 4, 113903 (2019), ISSN 2469-990X, arXiv: 1808.06479.
  * Coles [1965] D. Coles, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 21, 385 (1965), ISSN 1469-7645, 0022-1120, publisher: Cambridge University Press.
  * Atta [1966] C. V. Atta, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 25, 495 (1966), ISSN 1469-7645, 0022-1120, publisher: Cambridge University Press.
  * Prigent et al. [2002] A. Prigent, G. Grégoire, H. Chaté, O. Dauchot, and W. van Saarloos, Physical Review Letters 89, 014501 (2002), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114.
  * Prigent et al. [2003] A. Prigent, G. Grégoire, H. Chaté, and O. Dauchot, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 174, 100 (2003), ISSN 01672789.
  * Duguet et al. [2010] Y. Duguet, P. Schlatter, and D. S. Henningson, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 650, 119 (2010), ISSN 0022-1120, 1469-7645.
  * Manneville [2012] P. Manneville, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 98, 64001 (2012).
  * Manneville and Shimizu [2019] P. Manneville and M. Shimizu, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03739 (2019).
  * Paranjape et al. [2020] C. S. Paranjape, Y. Duguet, and B. Hof, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 897 (2020).
  * Liu and Gayme [2021] C. Liu and D. F. Gayme, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 927 (2021).
  * Klotz et al. [2022] L. Klotz, G. Lemoult, K. Avila, and B. Hof, Physical Review Letters 128, 014502 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society.
  * Kohyama et al. [2022] K. Kohyama, M. Sano, and T. Tsukahara, Physics of Fluids (2022).
  * Pomeau [1986] Y. Pomeau, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 23, 3 (1986), ISSN 01672789.
  * Lemoult et al. [2016] G. Lemoult, L. Shi, K. Avila, S. V. Jalikop, M. Avila, and B. Hof, Nature Physics 12, 254 (2016), ISSN 1745-2473, 1745-2481.
  * Chantry et al. [2017] M. Chantry, L. S. Tuckerman, and D. Barkley, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 824, R1 (2017), ISSN 0022-1120, 1469-7645.
  * Barkley [2011a] D. Barkley, Physical Review E 84, 016309 (2011a), ISSN 1539-3755, 1550-2376, arXiv: 1101.4125.
  * Barkley [2011b] D. Barkley, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 318, 032001 (2011b), ISSN 1742-6596.
  * Kashyap et al. [2020] P. V. Kashyap, Y. Duguet, and O. Dauchot, Entropy 22, 1001 (2020), number: 9 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
  * Waleffe [1997] F. Waleffe, Physics of Fluids 9, 883 (1997).
  * Dauchot and Vioujard [2000] O. Dauchot and N. Vioujard, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 14, 377 (2000).
  * Tuckerman et al. [2010a] L. S. Tuckerman, D. Barkley, and O. Dauchot, in _Seventh IUTAM Symposium on Laminar-Turbulent Transition_ (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010a), vol. 18, pp. 59–66, ISBN 978-90-481-3722-0 978-90-481-3723-7.
  * Russo and Luchini [2016] S. Russo and P. Luchini, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 790, 104 (2016).
  * Gibson et al. [2022] J. Gibson, F. Reetz, S. Azimi, A. Ferraro, T. Kreilos, H. Schrobsdorff, N. Farano, A. F. Yesil, S. S. Schütz, M. Culpo, et al., manuscript in preparation (2022).
  * Song and Xiao [2020] B. Song and X. Xiao, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 903 (2020), ISSN 0022-1120, 1469-7645, publisher: Cambridge University Press.
  * Mukund et al. [2021] V. Mukund, C. Paranjape, M. P. Sitte, and B. Hof, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06537 (2021).
  * Reynolds and Tiederman [1967] W. Reynolds and W. Tiederman, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 27, 253 (1967).
  * Tuckerman et al. [2010b] L. S. Tuckerman, D. Barkley, and O. Dauchot, (private communication) (2010b).
  * Keefe et al. [1992] L. Keefe, P. Moin, and J. Kim, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 242, 1 (1992).
  * Iyer et al. [2019] A. S. Iyer, F. D. Witherden, S. I. Chernyshenko, and P. E. Vincent, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 875, 758 (2019), ISSN 0022-1120, 1469-7645.
  * Cross and Greenside [2009] M. Cross and H. Greenside, _Pattern Formation and Dynamics in Nonequilibrium_ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009), ISBN 978-0-521-77050-7.
  * Kashyap [2021] P. Kashyap, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris-Saclay (2021).
  * Turing [1952] A. M. Turing, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 237, 37 (1952), ISSN 0080-4622, publisher: The Royal Society.
  * Reynolds and Hussain [1972] W. Reynolds and A. Hussain, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 54, 263 (1972).
  * Del Alamo and Jimenez [2006] J. C. Del Alamo and J. Jimenez, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 559, 205 (2006).
  * Markeviciute and Kerswell [2022] V. K. Markeviciute and R. R. Kerswell, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.01540 (2022).

##  I Supplementary Informations

###  I.1 Appendix A : Illustration of pattern formation for different domain
sizes

The robustness of pattern formation has been verified with simulations
conducted for different domain sizes with equivalent numerical resolutions. As
an example, fig 5 illustrates pattern formation occurring at $Re_{\tau}=80$,
visualized with the help of $E_{v}(x,z)$ for different domain sizes i.e
$L_{x}=2L_{z}=250$, $L_{x}=2L_{z}=500$, $L_{x}=2L_{z}=1000$. It demonstrates
the robustness of the wavelength with respect to changes of computational
domain. Simulations with the inverse aspect ratio, i.e $2L_{x}=L_{z}=250$,
confirm this observation.

Figure 5: Illustration of pattern formation in different spatial domains.
$E_{v}(x,z)$ for $Re_{\tau}=80$, same colorbar as fig. 1 of the main article.
Each domain demarcated by white lines corresponds to a simulation in a
different computational domain.

###  I.2 Appendix B : Evaluation of the decay rate $\sigma$

The procedure followed for evaluating the decay rate is as follows:

  * •

Plot the ensemble-averaged amplitude
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}(Re_{\tau},k_{x},k_{z},t)$ against
time.

  * •

Extract the saturation amplitude : The largest time interval of least change
in the amplitude indicates the statistically steady state. The average
computed over this time interval is denoted as the saturation amplitude
$A_{s}$.

  * •

The saturation amplitude $A_{s}$ is subtracted from
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}(Re_{\tau},k_{x},k_{z},t)$

  * •

The logarithm of the amplitude
$\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}-A_{s}$ is fit with a straight line
by considering $\log(\langle\left|\hat{\tau}\right|\rangle_{e}-A_{s})$ for the
time interval $(t,t_{s})$ where $t_{s}$ marks the beginning of saturation and
$t$ is gradually increased from zero. Since the decay / approach to the steady
state is exponential as observed from fig 3b, the logarithmic scale makes it
linear in nature. Performing the linear curve fit for different intervals of
$(t,t_{s})$, the largest interval of marginal change in the slope of the
fitted line is taken to be representative of the exponential decay. The slope
thus evaluated is considered as the decay rate $\sigma(Re_{\tau},k_{x},k_{z})$

  * •

This procedure is repeated for all values of $Re_{\tau}$ simulated and
$(k_{x},k_{z})$ pairs in the interval $\mathcal{S}=\\{0.075\lesssim
k_{x}\lesssim 0.22,0.2\lesssim k_{z}\lesssim 0.5\\}$ to construct the
dispersion surfaces shown in fig 4a.

Following the evaluation of the decay rates $\sigma(Re_{\tau},k_{x},k_{z})$,
the data is fit with a paraboloid for the dispersion surface (see fig 4a). The
functional form of these fits and the obtained coefficients are listed below:

  * •

The dispersion surface is fit with the function

$\sigma=\alpha(k_{x}-k_{xc})^{2}+\beta(k_{z}-k_{zc})^{2}+\gamma(k_{x}-k_{xc})(k_{z}-k_{zc})+\delta$
(4)

The coefficients of the fits are :

$Re_{\tau}$ | $\alpha$ | $\beta$ | $\gamma$ | $\delta$ | $k_{xc}$ | $k_{zc}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
110 | -0.069 | -0.01 | 0.018 | -0.0018 | 0.18 | 0.4
96 | -0.1 | -0.016 | 0.028 | -0.0003 | 0.19 | 0.45
Table 1: Coefficients of the paraboloid surface fit of Eq 4