This paper describes the KCLarity team's participation in CLARITY, a shared task at SemEval 2026 on classifying ambiguity and evasion techniques in political discourse. We investigate two modelling formulations: (i) directly predicting the clarity label, and (ii) predicting the evasion label and deriving clarity through the task taxonomy hierarchy. We further explore several auxiliary training variants and evaluate decoder-only models in a zero-shot setting under the evasion-first formulation. Overall, the two formulations yield comparable performance. Among encoder-based models, RoBERTa-large achieves the strongest results on the public test set, while zero-shot GPT-5.2 generalises better on the hidden evaluation set.
Figures & tables
Clarity Level
Evasion Level
Clear Reply
Explicit
Ambivalent Reply
Implicit, Dodging, General, Deflection, Partial
Clear Non-Reply
Declining, Ignorance, Clarification
Table 1: Taxonomy of response clarity classification.
Model
Direct clarity
Evasion-based clarity
F1
P
R
F1
P
R
base
0.598
0.586
0.636
0.595
0.589
0.619
(0.010)
(0.013)
(0.021)
(0.028)
(0.035)
(0.030)
large
0.658
0.681
0.661
0.661
0.694
0.641
(0.024)
(0.081)
(0.030)
(0.022)
(0.013)
(0.023)
Table 2: RoBERTa models: direct vs evasion-based clarity on the public test split. Macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R), averaged over three seeds (standard deviation in brackets). Higher scores between the two formulations are shown in bold.
Model
Evasion-based clarity
Evasion
F1
P
R
ACCmatch
F1 A1
F1 A2
F1 A3
F1 avg
RoBERTa-base
0.595
0.589
0.619
0.516
0.349
0.332
0.333
0.338
(0.028)
(0.035)
(0.030)
(0.014)
(0.024)
(0.007)
(0.008)
(0.011)
RoBERTa-large
0.661
0.694
0.641
0.539
0.363
0.378
0.374
0.371
(0.022)
(0.013)
(0.023)
(0.011)
(0.030)
(0.035)
(0.047)
(0.037)
DeBERTa-v3-base
0.535
0.564
0.565
0.505
0.304
0.337
0.303
0.314
Table 3: Fine-tuned encoder results on the public test set. For evasion-based clarity we report macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R). For evasion we report ACCmatch , the fraction of predictions matching at least one annotator, per-annotator macro-F1, and the average macro-F1 across annotators. Results are averaged over three seeds (mean on the main row, standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath). Best-performing metrics are shown in bold.
Model
Evasion-based clarity
Evasion
F1
P
R
ACCmatch
F1 A1
F1 A2
F1 A3
F1 avg
gemma_3_27b_it
0.413
0.501
0.446
0.344
0.137
0.149
0.137
0.141
gpt_oss_120b
0.354
0.374
0.354
0.357
0.104
0.121
0.115
0.114
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
0.346
0.385
0.370
0.351
0.054
0.079
0.068
0.067
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
0.532
0.544
0.547
0.416
0.284
0.292
0.294
0.290
Qwen3-8B
0.337
0.361
0.350
0.292
0.060
0.078
0.070
0.069
Table 4: Zero-shot results on the public test set. For evasion-based clarity we report macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R). For evasion we report ACCmatch , the fraction of predictions matching at least one annotator, per-annotator macro-F1, and the average macro-F1 across annotators. Best-performing metrics are shown in bold.
Figure 1: Row-normalised confusion matrices on the test set for RoBERTa-large model. Rows correspond to gold labels and columns to predicted labels; values represent row-wise proportions such that each row sums to 1. Raw counts are averaged across random seeds and, for the evasion task, across annotators prior to row normalisation.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: An example from the CLARITY dataset
Label
Definition
Clarity Level
Clear Reply
Answers that admit a single interpretation.
Clear Non-Reply
Answers that openly refuse to share information.
Ambivalent Reply
Valid answers that allow for multiple interpretations.
Evasion Level
Explicit
The requested information is clearly and directly stated in the expected form.
Appendix
Table 5: Clarity and evasion technique label definitions, adapted from Thomas et al. (2024) .
Figure 3: Class distribution in the training set.
Figure 4: President and clarity level distribution in the training set.
Loss
Evasion-based clarity
Evasion
F1
P
R
ACCmatch
F1 A1
F1 A2
F1 A3
F1 avg
Unweighted
0.661
0.694
0.641
0.539
0.363
0.378
0.374
0.371
(0.022)
(0.013)
(0.023)
(0.011)
(0.030)
(0.035)
(0.047)
(0.037)
Balanced
0.603
0.602
0.642
0.515
0.350
0.347
0.327
0.341
(0.077)
(0.098)
(0.023)
(0.049)
(0.033)
(0.035)
(0.047)
(0.038)
Sqrt
0.602
0.617
0.625
0.505
0.318
0.304
0.302
0.308
Appendix
Table 7: RoBERTa-large loss-weighting ablation on the public test set. For evasion-based clarity we report macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R). For evasion we report ACCmatch , the fraction of predictions matching at least one annotator, per-annotator macro-F1, and the average macro-F1 across annotators. All models are fine-tuned on evasion labels, with clarity inferred via the taxonomy. Results are averaged over three seeds (mean on the main row, standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath). Best-performing metrics are shown in bold.
Input
Evasion-based clarity
Evasion
F1
P
R
ACCmatch
F1 A1
F1 A2
F1 A3
F1 avg
Segmented
0.518
0.520
0.534
0.473
0.277
0.272
0.261
0.270
(0.019)
(0.018)
(0.021)
(0.004)
(0.015)
(0.016)
(0.003)
(0.004)
Marked
0.595
0.589
0.619
0.516
0.349
0.332
0.333
0.338
(0.028)
(0.035)
(0.030)
(0.014)
(0.024)
(0.007)
(0.008)
(0.011)
Appendix
Table 8: RoBERTa-base input representation ablation on the public test set. For evasion-based clarity we report macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R). For evasion we report ACCmatch , the fraction of predictions matching at least one annotator, per-annotator macro-F1, and the average macro-F1 across annotators. All models are fine-tuned on evasion labels, with clarity inferred via the taxonomy. Results are averaged over three seeds (mean on the main row, standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath). Best-performing metrics are shown in bold.
Input
Direct clarity
F1
P
R
Segmented
0.573
0.552
0.621
(0.010)
(0.018)
(0.020)
Marked
0.598
0.586
0.636
(0.010)
(0.013)
(0.021)
Appendix
Table 9: RoBERTa-base input representation ablation for direct clarity on the public test set. We report macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R). Results are averaged over three seeds (mean on the main row, standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath). Best-performing metrics are shown in bold.
Split Method
Evasion-based clarity
Evasion
F1
P
R
ACCmatch
F1 A1
F1 A2
F1 A3
F1 avg
Label-stratified
0.661
0.694
0.641
0.539
0.363
0.378
0.374
0.371
(0.022)
(0.013)
(0.023)
(0.011)
(0.030)
(0.035)
(0.047)
(0.037)
President disjoint
0.624
0.642
0.624
0.529
0.330
0.306
0.318
0.318
(0.029)
(0.027)
(0.035)
(0.012)
(0.036)
(0.033)
(0.058)
(0.039)
Appendix
Table 10: RoBERTa-large split-strategy ablation on the public test set. For evasion-based clarity we report macro-F1 (F1), precision (P), and recall (R). For evasion we report ACCmatch , the fraction of predictions matching at least one annotator, per-annotator macro-F1, and the average macro-F1 across annotators. All models are fine-tuned on evasion labels, with clarity inferred via the taxonomy. Results are averaged over three seeds (mean on the main row, standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath). Best-performing metrics are shown in bold.
Clarity label
Support
P
R
F1
Clear Reply
79
0.550
0.608
0.577
(0.005)
(0.046)
(0.019)
Ambivalent
206
0.801
0.794
0.798
(0.003)
(0.022)
(0.011)
Clear Non-Reply
23
0.733
0.522
0.608
(0.039)
(0.087)
(0.072)
Appendix
Table 11: Per-label clarity (evasion-based) on the test set (RoBERTa-large). Clarity labels are inferred from evasion via the taxonomy. Support is the number of test instances per label. Results are averaged over 3 seeds (13, 21, 42): mean on the main row, sample standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath.
Evasion label
Support
F1
A1
A2
A3
F1 A1
F1 A2
F1 A3
F1 avg
Explicit
106
53
80
0.589
0.536
0.573
0.566
(0.033)
(0.027)
(0.028)
(0.030)
Implicit
54
54
67
0.242
0.257
0.333
0.277
(0.083)
(0.048)
(0.077)
(0.069)
Dodging
58
72
43
0.469
0.371
0.381
0.407
Appendix
Table 12: Per-label evasion F1 on the test set (RoBERTa-large). For each evasion label, we report F1 against each annotator (A1-A3) and the average across annotators. Support indicates the number of test instances for that label for each annotator. Results are averaged over 3 seeds (13, 21, 42): mean on the main row, sample standard deviation in brackets on the row beneath.
Setting
RoBERTa-base
RoBERTa-large
DeBERTa-v3-base
DeBERTa-v3-large
Max input length
512
Learning rate
2×10−5
Warmup ratio
0.1
Weight decay
0.01
Dropout
0.1
Max epochs
20
Appendix
Table 13: Training and optimisation settings for all encoder experiments. All hyperparameters are shared across models except batch size and gradient accumulation steps, which are reduced for DeBERTa-v3-large to accommodate its larger memory footprint (effective batch size 32 throughout).
We describe our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6 (CLARITY: Unmasking Political Question Evasions), which classifies English political interview responses by coarse-grained clarity (3-way) and fine-grained evasion strategy (9-way). Since responses frequently exceed the 512-token limit of standard Transformer encoders, we apply an overlapping sliding-window chunking strategy with element-wise Max-Pooling aggregation over chunk representations. A shared RoBERTa-large encoder supplies two task-specific heads trained jointly via a multi-task objective, with inference-time ensembling over 7-fold stratified cross-validation. Our system achieves a Macro-F1 of 0.80 on Subtask 1 and 0.51 on Subtask 2, ranking 11th in both subtasks.
Gabriel Stefan, Sergiu Nisioi
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science University of Bucharest
Political speakers often avoid answering questions directly while maintaining the appearance of responsiveness. Despite its importance for public discourse, such strategic evasion remains underexplored in Natural Language Processing. We introduce SemEval-2026 Task 6, CLARITY, a shared task on political question evasion consisting of two subtasks: (i) clarity-level classification into Clear Reply, Ambivalent, and Clear Non-Reply, and (ii) evasion-level classification into nine fine-grained evasion strategies. The benchmark is constructed from U.S. presidential interviews and follows an expert-grounded taxonomy of response clarity and evasion. The task attracted 124 registered teams, who submitted 946 valid runs for clarity-level classification and 539 for evasion-level classification. Results show a substantial gap in difficulty between the two subtasks: the best system achieved 0.89 macro-F1 on clarity classification, surpassing the strongest baseline by a large margin, while the top evasion-level system reached 0.68 macro-F1, matching the best baseline. Overall, large language model prompting and hierarchical exploitation of the taxonomy emerged as the most effective strategies, with top systems consistently outperforming those that treated the two subtasks independently. CLARITY establishes political response evasion as a challenging benchmark for computational discourse analysis and highlights the difficulty of modeling strategic ambiguity in political language.
Konstantinos Thomas, Giorgos Filandrianos, Maria Lymperaiou +2
National Technical University of Athens · Instituto de Telecomunicações · Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa +1
This paper describes our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6, which addresses the classification of political evasion strategies in English question-answer pairs extracted from U.S. presidential interviews. We systematically compare two distinct paradigms: (1) Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of Qwen3 models (4B-32B) using QLoRA, enhanced with tiered upsampling and weighted cross-entropy loss to address severe class imbalance, and (2) structured Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting of reasoning-capable API models, namely DeepSeek-V3.2 and Grok-4-Fast. Our evaluation demonstrates that structured CoT prompting of reasoning-enabled models substantially outperforms our baseline parameter-efficient fine-tuning implementation in absolute Macro F1. Our best system, Grok-4-Fast with extended reasoning and few-shot hierarchical CoT prompting, achieves a Macro F1 of 0.5147 on Subtask 2 (9-class evasion) and 0.7979 on Subtask 1 (3-class clarity), ranking 8th out of 33 teams on Subtask 2 and 13th out of 41 teams on Subtask 1 on the official leaderboard. Furthermore, our ablation studies reveal key insights into effective prompt design for evasion detection: presenting labels within a hierarchical taxonomy helps structure model reasoning, while few-shot exemplars provide task calibration. However, the strongest prompt variants are not statistically distinguishable in Macro F1, and explicitly enabling extended reasoning modes yields substantial performance gains by facilitating the multi-step pragmatic analysis required to detect evasive intent.
Tai Tran Tan, An Dinh Thien
University of Information Technology, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam · Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam