Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The BioSentinel team tackled the challenge of classifying the intent behind memes in the EXIST 2026 competition using a text-centric approach based on the xlm-roberta-base model. By employing a composite loss function that integrates KL divergence for soft-label predictions and weighted cross-entropy for hard labels, they achieved competitive results, ranking 40th in soft-soft evaluations and 49th in hard-hard evaluations. Their findings highlight the importance of annotator disagreement in subjective NLP tasks and demonstrate that KL loss enhances soft-label metrics while cross-entropy improves hard-label accuracy.
Soft-label optimization significantly boosts intent classification accuracy in memes, revealing the nuanced impact of annotator disagreement on model performance.
This paper describes the BioSentinel team's participation in EXIST 2026 Task 2.2: Source Intention in Memes, part of the CLEF 2026 evaluation campaign. The task requires classifying the communicative intent behind memes as direct, judgemental, or no (non-sexist), under a Learning with Disagreement (Le-Wi-Di) paradigm that mandates both hard-label and soft-label (probability distribution) predictions. We present a text-centric approach built on xlm-roberta-base (270M parameters) trained with a composite loss function combining KL divergence on soft annotator distributions and weighted cross-entropy on hard labels. On the official test set, the system achieved an ICM-Soft-Norm of 0.3229 and ICM-Norm of 0.3778, with a hard F1-score of 0.4236, ranking 40th (out of 118 submissions) in the soft-soft evaluation and 49th (out of 187 submissions) in the hard-hard evaluation. We provide an analysis of the dataset characteristics, exploratory larger-architecture runs, and the role of annotator disagreement in shaping model design for subjective NLP tasks. Ablation results show that KL loss improves soft-label metrics, while CE loss improves hard-label accuracy. We also report a separate validation-set temperature analysis.