[ { "title": "Indirect abuse: baseline misses, A and B catch", "language": "English", "text": "I didn't know the right wing loved islam", "true_label": "harmful", "sarcasm_score": "0.75", "source": "cad", "models": [ { "name": "Baseline", "prob": "0.45", "decision": "non-harmful (MISS)" }, { "name": "Mechanism A", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism B", "prob": "0.61", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism D", "prob": "0.60", "decision": "HARMFUL" } ], "story": "CAD is where the mechanisms' recall gains concentrate (baseline recall 0.389 -> B 0.593, p<1e-5): contextual, indirect abuse benefits most from the auxiliary non-literality signal." }, { "title": "Tunisian dialect: the worry that turned out backwards", "language": "Arabic", "text": "اتقوا انفسكم ياتوانسه", "true_label": "harmful", "sarcasm_score": "0.21", "source": "thsab", "models": [ { "name": "Baseline", "prob": "0.26", "decision": "non-harmful (MISS)" }, { "name": "Mechanism A", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism B", "prob": "0.80", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism D", "prob": "0.18", "decision": "non-harmful (MISS)" } ], "story": "Despite zero Tunisian data in the sarcasm layer's training pool, A and B are significantly effective on T-HSAB specifically (McNemar p=0.015 / p=0.029) -- the suspected weak point was verified to be a strength." }, { "title": "Sarcastic camouflage: high sarcasm score, hostile intent", "language": "Arabic", "text": "يلعن صباحك نزعتلي نهاري", "true_label": "harmful", "sarcasm_score": "0.85", "source": "lhsab", "models": [ { "name": "Baseline", "prob": "0.03", "decision": "non-harmful (MISS)" }, { "name": "Mechanism A", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism B", "prob": "0.98", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism D", "prob": "0.93", "decision": "HARMFUL" } ], "story": "The motivating case of the thesis: superficially non-hostile or joking wording carrying real hostility, recovered when the sarcasm signal is available." }, { "title": "The honest trade-off: a false positive the mechanisms introduce", "language": "English", "text": "@user “ lets go gays ”", "true_label": "non-harmful", "sarcasm_score": "0.48", "source": "hatexplain", "models": [ { "name": "Baseline", "prob": "0.43", "decision": "non-harmful" }, { "name": "Mechanism A", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL (false positive)" }, { "name": "Mechanism B", "prob": "0.77", "decision": "HARMFUL (false positive)" }, { "name": "Mechanism D", "prob": "0.51", "decision": "HARMFUL (false positive)" } ], "story": "Every mechanism trades precision for recall. Showing a failure case demonstrates the evaluation was honest: the operating point shifts toward recall; the mechanisms do not dominate the baseline on both axes." }, { "title": "Mechanism D's cross-lingual cost: Arabic harmful D misses", "language": "Arabic", "text": "صحيح انك انسان وضيع", "true_label": "harmful", "sarcasm_score": "0.83", "source": "lhsab", "models": [ { "name": "Baseline", "prob": "0.99", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism A", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism B", "prob": "0.98", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "Mechanism D", "prob": "0.05", "decision": "non-harmful (MISS)" } ], "story": "Mechanism D helps English but degrades Arabic (recall 0.8155 -> 0.7729, p=0.0009) -- a cost the constant-score ablation showed is independent of score values, and which generalized to French in zero-shot transfer (recall collapse to 0.15-0.18)." }, { "title": "Mechanism D2: what reasoning injection looks like (pilot)", "language": "Arabic", "text": "صحيح انك انسان وضيع", "true_label": "harmful", "sarcasm_score": "0.83", "source": "lhsab", "models": [ { "name": "Matched baseline", "prob": "--", "decision": "non-harmful (MISS)" }, { "name": "Matched D (score)", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL" }, { "name": "D2 (reasoning)", "prob": "--", "decision": "HARMFUL" } ], "story": "Generated reasoning for this example: “Literal meaning: It is true that you are a worthless person. Implied meaning: The speaker is insulting the addressee's worthiness and dignity. Speaker intention: To demean and criticize the addressee's value and status. Indirect language: No -- the statement is made directly without any implied irony or sarcasm.” — D2 significantly beats its matched baseline (p=0.0019, replicated with a second generator, p=0.0038) but does not exceed bare-score injection: the channel, not the content, is the binding constraint." } ]