Battling Toxicity: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Content Moderation

With the exponential growth of user-generated content, online platforms face unprecedented challenges in moderating toxic and harmful comments. Due to this, Automated content moderation has emerged as a critical application of machine learning, enabling platforms to ensure user safety and maintain community standards. Despite its importance, challenges such as severe class imbalance, contextual ambiguity, and the diverse nature of toxic language often compromise moderation accuracy, leading to biased classification performance.

This project presents a comparative analysis of machine learning approaches for a Multi-Label Toxic Comment Classification System using the Toxic Comment Classification dataset from Kaggle.  The study examines the performance of traditional algorithms, such as Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost, alongside deep architectures, including Bi-LSTM, CNN-Bi-LSTM, and DistilBERT. The proposed approach utilizes word-level embeddings across all models and examines the effects of architectural enhancements, hyperparameter optimization, and advanced training strategies on model robustness and predictive accuracy.

The study emphasizes the significance of loss function optimization and threshold adjustment strategies in improving the detection of minority classes. The comparative results reveal distinct performance trade-offs across model architectures, with transformer models achieving superior contextual understanding at the cost of computational complexity. At the same time, deep learning approaches(LSTM models) offer efficiency advantages. These findings establish evidence-based guidelines for model selection in real-world content moderation systems, striking a balance between accuracy requirements and operational constraints.