Online sexism appears in various forms, which makes its detection challenging. Although automated tools can enhance the identification of sexist content, they are often restricted to binary classification. Consequently, more subtle manifestations of sexism may remain undetected due to the lack of fine-grained, context-sensitive labels. To address this issue, we make the following contributions: (1) we present FineMuSe, a new multimodal sexism detection dataset in Spanish that includes both binary and fine-grained annotations; (2) we introduce a comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy that encompasses forms of sexism, non-sexism, and rhetorical devices of irony and humor; and (3) we evaluate a wide range of LLMs for both binary and fine-grained sexism detection. Our findings indicate that multimodal LLMs perform competitively with human annotators in identifying nuanced forms of sexism; however, they struggle to capture co-occurring sexist types when these are conveyed through visual cues.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Platform
Language
Target group
Annotation of modalities
Annotators expertise
Label
Advertisements
Gasparini et al. (2018)
FB
eng
W
✗
Not Specified
S, NS
Memes
Fersini, Gasparini, and Corchs (2019)
FB, X, R, IG
eng
W
✗
Crowd Sourcing
S(A,I), NS
Fersini et al. (2022)
X, R, MGTOW
eng
W
✗
Crowd Sourcing
M(4), NM
Buie and Croft (2023)
Pixabay
eng
W
✗
Crowd Sourcing
H, B, O
Table 1: A comparison of multimodal datasets for sexism and misogyny analysis. W = Women, FB = Facebook, IG = Instagram, R = Reddit, P = Pinterest, TT = TikTok, YT = YouTube, S = Sexist, NS = Non-Sexist, M = Misogyny, NM = Non-Misogynistic, H = Hostile Sexism, B = Benevolent Sexism, O = Objectification, A = Aggressiveness, I = Irony, HU = Humor. Numbers in brackets indicate the number of categories per label.
Figure 1: Three-level hierarchical taxonomy for labeling sexism, non-sexism, and rhetorical devices in social media videos.
Table 2: Examples of short videos by sexism type along with their text transcriptions. Example (a) includes a stereotype, reinforcing the traditional gender division between men (external power) and women (domestic sphere). Example (b) expresses the denial of inequality, conveying the idea that Spanish law marginalizes men and overprotects women. Example (c) illustrates discrimination by claiming that trans rights are an attack on democracy. Example (d) objectifies women through a hypersexualized portrayal and prescribes strategies on how to attract or seduce them.
Figure 2: Distribution of sexist and non-sexist categories across Part 1 and Part 2.
P1: TikTok & BitChute
P2: YouTube Shorts
Type
Total
%
Total
%
Sexist
Irony
5
2.4%
5
2.5%
Humor
7
3.4%
0
0%
Non-sexist
Irony
13
6.3%
10
4.3%
Table 3: Distribution of Irony and Humor across FineMuSe.
Category
Team
P1
P2
Stereotypes
Team 1
0.52
0.50
Team 2
0.64
0.50
Inequality
Team 1
0.57
0.72
Team 2
0.40
0.45
Discrimination
Team 1
0.54
0.73
Team 2
0.60
0.49
Table 4: Fleiss’ Kappa values for the Video modality across dataset parts, annotation teams, and categories. Highest values per category are in bold . P1 = Part 1, P2 = Part 2.
Figure 3: Fleiss’ Kappa values for sexist categories across Text and Video modalities in Part 1 and Part 2.
P1: TikTok & BitChute
P2: YouTube Shorts
Type
Total
%
Total
%
Broad Macroareas
European Peninsular
72
18%
110
25.7%
Latin American Spanish
244
61%
257
60%
Latin American Varieties
Andean
30
12.3%
34
13.2%
Table 5: Distribution of regional Spanish varieties across dataset parts.
Model
P1 Acc.
P2 Acc.
Random
50.0
50.0
Smaller LLMs
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
61.8
67.0
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
61.0
66.6
Salamandra-7B-Instruct
55.0
60.1
Larger LLMs
Table 6: Binary sexism detection results. Acc. = Accuracy over all samples. P1 = Part 1, P2 = Part 2. Format Error Rate (FoER) was negligible across models ( <0.07 for all except Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct); full results with FoER and Valid Accuracy are reported in Appendix Table 13 . Best scores are in bold .
Model
P1
P2
F1
V-F1
FR
F1
V-F1
FR
Random
31.7
31.7
0.0
35.4
35.4
0.0
Smaller LLMs
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
47.6
54.2
0.2
39.0
48.7
0.2
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
25.1
26.6
0.1
27.2
29.3
0.2
Salamandra-7B-Instruct
45.3
45.8
0.0
47.0
48.5
0.1
Table 7: Fine-grained sexism detection results. F1 = Macro F1 (All), V-F1 = Valid Macro F1, FR = Failure Rate. Results are reported for Part 1 (P1) and Part 2 (P2). Format Error rates (FoER) are given in Appendix Appendix E: Results . Best scores are in bold .
Figure 4: Per-class F1 scores for fine-grained sexism detection across text-only and multimodal models. Results are split by dataset part (Part 1, Part 2). Horizontal dashed lines denote category averages across models. Multimodal models consistently outperform text-only models, especially in Part 2, though Objectification remains the hardest category across platforms.
Figure 5: Correlation matrices for human annotations and Claude-3.7 Sonnet (V+L) predictions, based on the co-occurrence of sexist types.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Annotator profiles
Gender
4 female, 2 male (6 total)
Age
3 under 30, 3 over 30
Native Language
Mexican Spanish (1), Peninsular Spanish (5)
Study/Occupation
Linguistics (4), Adjunct Professor (1),
PhD student in Science Communication (1)
Appendix
Table 8: Annotator profiles, including gender, age groups, languages, and areas of study/occupation.
Figure 6: Prompt template for fine-grained sexism detection at the video level (English translation).
Figure 7: Prompt template used for fine-grained sexism detection for text-only models.
Figure 8: Prompt template used for fine-grained sexism detection for multimodal language models.
P1
P2
Model
All
Val
FoER
All
Val
FoER
Smaller LLMs
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
61.75
63.16
0.05
67.00
67.00
0.07
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
61.00
61.00
0.00
66.59
66.59
0.00
Salamandra-7B-Instruct
55.00
60.05
0.00
55.00
60.05
0.00
Larger LLMs
Appendix
Table 13: Binary sexism detection results (full metrics). All = Accuracy (All), Val = Accuracy (Valid), FoER = Format Error Rate. Results are shown for Part 1 (P1, MuSeD: TikTok & BitChute) and Part 2 (P2, YouTube Shorts).
Model
P1 FoER
P2 FoER
Smaller LLMs
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
0.07
0.11
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
0.00
0.00
Salamandra-7B-Instruct
0.00
0.00
Larger LLMs
Llama-3-70B-Instruct
0.03
0.06
Appendix
Table 14: Format Error Rates (FoER) for fine-grained sexism detection. Values correspond to Part 1 (P1: TikTok & BitChute) and Part 2 (P2: YouTube Shorts).
P1: TikTok & BitChute
P2: YouTube Shorts
Model
St
In
Di
Ob
St
In
Di
Ob
Random
27.25
19.00
7.50
1.75
25.93
26.87
14.02
2.80
Smaller LLMs
Llama-3-8B-Instruct
73.09
61.20
38.30
17.91
58.44
66.06
24.00
7.84
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
72.45
5.00
19.89
3.13
64.36
1.72
34.08
8.70
Salamandra-7B-Instruct
72.30
55.65
40.00
13.64
61.83
68.87
45.71
11.76
Appendix
Table 15: Per-class F1 scores for fine-grained sexism categories. P1 = Part 1 (TikTok & BitChute), P2 = Part 2 (YouTube Shorts). St = Stereotypes, In = Inequality, Di = Discrimination, Ob = Objectification. Best scores are in bold .
Explanation 1
Explanation 2
R1
I1
G1
R2
I2
G2
El contenido presenta de forma irónica supuestos ’privilegios masculinos’ que son en realidad desventajas, minimizando las desigualdades estructurales que enfrentan las mujeres y reforzando estereotipos de género sobre roles laborales y responsabilidades familiares. The content ironically presents supposed ’male privileges’ which are actually disadvantages, minimizing structural inequalities faced by women and reinforcing gender stereotypes about work roles and family responsibilities.
El video presenta contenido sexista puesto que pone en duda el privilegio masculino, argumentando como ocupan puesto de mayor riesgo físico, además de que se tienen que jubilar más tarde, acostumbran a perder los juicios por potestas de los hijos, etc. The video presents sexist content as it questions male privilege, arguing that men occupy higher-risk positions, retire later, and often lose child custody cases.
5
5
4
3
3
2
El video explica conceptos relacionados con orientación sexual y critica la heteronorma (expectativa de que las relaciones sean heterosexuales). Promueve el entendimiento de la diversidad sexual y reconoce diferentes realidades, sin perpetuar estereotipos sexistas. The video explains concepts related to sexual orientation and critiques heteronormativity (the expectation that relationships are heterosexual). It promotes understanding of sexual diversity and acknowledges different realities without perpetuating sexist stereotypes.
Este vídeo no contiene contenido sexista, ya que hace divulgación sobre la orientación sexual. No muestra estereotipos ni discriminación por la identidad sexual. Explica de forma divulgativa conceptos que usa, como el de cisgénero, y muestra que hay muchas maneras de entender el deseo y la orientación sexual. This video does not contain sexist content, as it provides educational information about sexual orientation. It does not show stereotypes or discrimination based on sexual identity. It explains, in an educational way, concepts it uses—such as "cisgender" and demonstrates that there are many ways to understand desire and sexual orientation.
5
3
4
5
5
5
Appendix
Table 16: Sample of comparison between the generated explanations of Claude-3.7-Sonnet (V+L) and human evaluators. Ratings are based on a 5-point Likert scale. The scores refer to three categories: R for Relevance, I for Informativeness, G for Groundness. Each annotator received the binary and fine-grained labels of the sexist types for each video.
Evaluator
Metric
W
p-value
Average Human
Average Model
Median Human
Median Model
E1
R
97.5
0.12
4.03
4.46
4.0
5.0
E2
R
8.0
0.26
4.34
4.43
4.0
5.0
E3
R
30.0
0.03
4.66
4.37
5.0
5.0
E1
I
112.0
0.06
3.94
3.40
4.0
3.0
E2
I
133.5
0.40
3.89
4.03
4.0
4.0
E3
I
127.0
0.32
4.09
3.89
4.0
4.0
Appendix
Table 17: Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for human vs. model explanations. The metrics are: R for Relevance, I for Informativeness, and G for Groundness. Values with a statistically significant difference are shown in bold.
We present the AILS-NTUA submission to the EXIST 2026 Lab at CLEF, addressing multimodal sexism identification and characterization in memes (Task 2) and short-form videos (Task 3). Our system follows a feature-engineered late-fusion pipeline built around gradient-boosted regression models and hierarchical post-processing. For memes, we combine visual, textual, demographic, biometric, and LLM-derived semantic indicators designed to capture high-level cues such as stereotyping, objectification, irony, and misogyny. For videos, we investigate the effect of feature selection, frame-based visual representations, OCR-based textual features, acoustic descriptors, and sensor-derived metadata. Development results show that focused LLM-derived semantic cues improve meme sexism identification, while video performance is highly sensitive to feature dimensionality and cross-modal noise. For videos, development results favor compact feature selection, but official test results show that this conclusion does not fully transfer to unseen data, where the unfiltered representation generalizes better. Overall, our findings highlight the usefulness of targeted semantic feature engineering for static memes and the need for more robust temporal modeling in noisy short-form video settings.
Kyriakos Chaviaras, Maria Lymperaiou, Athanasios Voulodimos
1Artificial Intelligence and Learning Systems Laboratory School of Electrical and Computer Engineering National Technical University of Athens
Detecting sexism on the internet is a fundamentally subjective task; our team, VANGUARD, addresses this challenge in the EXIST 2026 Task 2 by proposing a human-centered multimodal framework that analyses and incorporates the psychological and demographic characteristics of human annotators into the detection pipeline. We fuse five input modalities through a cross-attention architecture with Feature-wise Linear Modulation conditioning. Meme text is extracted and visually described with Gemma 4, then augmented by automatic translation between English and Spanish with NLLB-200. Text and image representations are produced by LoRAadapted XLM-RoBERTa and CLIP encoders and fused with sensor features encoded by a pretrained autoencoder. To model annotator subjectivity, we frame Subtask 2.1 as a label distribution learning problem, optimizing a Kullback-Leibler divergence loss over the full annotator label distribution. At inference time, predictions are produced by soft-voting between the deep multimodal network and a complementary SVM trained on stylometric and physiological features. Our best submission ranks 29th out of 114 on Subtask 2.2 (source intention) under soft evaluation, and the normalized ICM scores remain above the baseline on Subtasks 2.1 and 2.2, indicating that annotator-centered conditioning contributes a usable signal. We release our full pipeline and analysis to support reproducible human-centered modeling.
Ana-Maria Luisa Mocanu, Sebastian Mocanu, Ciprian-Octavian Truică +1
National University of Science and Technology POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Splaiul Independenţei 313, Bucureşti 060042, Romania · Academy of Romanian Scientists, Ilfov 3, Bucharest, 050044, Romania
We present the AI Wizards submission to EXIST 2026 for multimodal sexism identification in memes. The task is composed of three, increasingly harder subtasks. We model them hierarchically as conditional soft-label prediction over empirical annotator distributions. Our system maps fixed Gemini Embedding 2 vision-language representations through a lightweight Gated MLP trained with KL divergence and homoscedastic uncertainty weighting. Our submissions ranked first on Task 2.3 and fourth on Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 on the official Soft-Soft leaderboards. The code is available at https://github.com/NLP-AI-Wizards/EXIST-2026
Matteo Fasulo, Antonio Gravina, Luca Tedeschini +1
Swiss Data Science Center, ETH Zürich, Andreasturm, Andreasstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland · Everest Systems GmbH, Max-Jarecki-Straße 21, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany · Villanova.ai S.P.A, Località Sa Illetta, SS 195 KM 2.3, 09123 Cagliari, Italy +1