CSE-UOI at SemEval-2026 Task 6: A Two-Stage Heterogeneous Ensemble with Deliberative Complexity Gating for Political Evasion Detection
Organizations: University of Ioannina · National Technical University of Athens
Abstract
This paper describes our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6, which classifies clarity of responses in political interviews into three categories: Clear Reply, Ambivalent, and Clear Non-Reply. We propose a heterogeneous dual large language model (LLM) ensemble via self-consistency (SC) and weighted voting, and a novel post-hoc correction mechanism, Deliberative Complexity Gating (DCG). This mechanism uses cross-model behavioral signals and exploits the finding that an LLM response-length proxy correlates strongly with sample ambiguity. To further examine mechanisms for improving ambiguity detection, we evaluated multi-agent debate as an alternative strategy for increasing deliberative capacity. Unlike DCG, which adaptively gates reasoning using cross-model behavioral signals, debate increases agent count without increasing model diversity. Our solution achieved a Macro-F1 score of 0.85 on the evaluation set, securing 3rd place and tied with the second-best reported score.
Figures & tables
| System Configuration | Dev F1 | Eval F1 |
|---|---|---|
| Grok-only ( ) | 0.7836 | 0.8264 |
| Gemini-only ( ) | 0.7761 | 0.8083 |
| Ensemble (Stage 1) | 0.7941 | 0.8122 |
| Ensemble + DCG (Stage 2) | 0.8100 | 0.8505 |
| Ablation Configuration | Dev F1 |
|---|---|
| Self-Consistency Sweep (Stage 1) | |
| (single pass) | 0.7845 |
| 0.7979 | |
| (production) | 0.7941 |
| Gemini Weight Sweep ( ) | |
| 0.7859 | |
| DCG Configuration | Dev F1 | Eval F1 |
|---|---|---|
| No DCG (Stage 1 only) | 0.7941 | 0.8122 |
| Dynamic (per-set ) | 0.8100 | 0.8505 |
| Fixed = Dev applied to Eval | — | 0.8416 |
| Fixed = Eval applied to Dev | 0.8089 | — |
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Candidate Signal | (Amb vs. CR) | (Amb vs. CNR) |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini response length | +1.03 / +1.20 | +0.93 / +0.64 |
| Grok response length | +0.55 / +0.56 | +0.65 / +0.50 |
| Grok self-consistency | -0.41 / -0.66 | -0.54 / -0.73 |
| Gemini self-consistency | -0.59 / -0.68 | -0.66 / -0.37 |
| Model | Length (A vs. CR) | Length (A vs. CNR) | Cons. (A vs. CR) | Cons. (A vs. CNR) | Unanim. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grok | +0.55 / +0.56 | +0.65 / +0.50 | / | / | 0.65 / 0.69 |
| Gemini | +1.03 / +1.20 | +0.93 / +0.64 | / | / | 0.60 / 0.75 |
| Kimi K2.6 | +0.60 / +0.82 | +0.22 / +0.23 | / | / | 0.58 / 0.69 |
| DS-MAX | +0.45 / +0.87 | +0.62 / +0.39 | / | / | 0.54 / 0.64 |
| Gemma 4 | +0.27 / +0.50 | +0.66 / +0.33 | / | / | / |
| Qwen 3.6 | +0.40 / +0.57 | +0.77 / +0.51 | / | / | 0.48 / 0.66 |
| Grok-role | Gemini-role | DEV F1 | EVAL F1 | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gemma 4 | Kimi | |||
| Kimi | DS-MAX | |||
| Kimi | DS-HIGH | |||
| Kimi | Qwen 3.6 | |||
| Kimi | Gemma 4 | |||
| Qwen 3.6 | Kimi |
| Rank | Team | Macro-F1 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | TeleAI | 0.89 |
| 2 | AsymVerify | 0.85 |
| 3 | CSE-UOI | 0.85 |
| 4 | Rasende Rakete | 0.83 |
| 5 | Evaluators | 0.83 |
| 6 | YNU-HPCC | 0.83 |
| Stage / Class | P | R | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 Ambivalent | 0.920 | 0.777 | 0.842 |
| S1 Clear Non-Reply | 0.710 | 0.957 | 0.815 |
| S1 Clear Reply | 0.641 | 0.835 | 0.725 |
| S2 Ambivalent | 0.870 | 0.874 | 0.872 |
| S2 Clear Non-Reply | 0.808 | 0.913 | 0.857 |
| S2 Clear Reply | 0.720 | 0.684 | 0.701 |
| Stage / Class | P | R | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 Ambivalent | 0.854 | 0.752 | 0.800 |
| S1 Clear Non-Reply | 0.806 | 0.829 | 0.817 |
| S1 Clear Reply | 0.765 | 0.882 | 0.820 |
| S2 Ambivalent | 0.823 | 0.872 | 0.847 |
| S2 Clear Non-Reply | 0.936 | 0.829 | 0.879 |
| S2 Clear Reply | 0.842 | 0.812 | 0.826 |
| Label | n | Grok | Gemini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit | 115 | 0.774 | 0.861 |
| Implicit | 99 | 0.748 | 0.667 |
| General | 113 | 0.637 | 0.611 |
| Dodging | 96 | 0.531 | 0.531 |
| Deflection | 51 | 0.647 | 0.490 |
| Partial | 14 | 0.714 | 0.643 |
| Label | n | Grok | Gemini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Explicit | 84 | 0.881 | 0.976 |
| Implicit | 23 | 0.522 | 0.565 |
| General | 19 | 0.632 | 0.579 |
| Dodging | 94 | 0.362 | 0.575 |
| Deflection | 0 | – | – |
| Partial | 23 | 0.087 | 0.261 |
| Gold Pred | CR | Amb | CNR | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear Reply | 54 | 25 | 0 | 79 |
| Ambivalent | 21 | 180 | 5 | 206 |
| Clear Non-Reply | 0 | 2 | 21 | 23 |
| Total | 75 | 207 | 26 | 308 |
| Gold Pred | CR | Amb | CNR | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear Reply | 69 | 16 | 0 | 85 |
| Ambivalent | 13 | 102 | 2 | 117 |
| Clear Non-Reply | 0 | 6 | 29 | 35 |
| Total | 82 | 124 | 31 | 237 |
Language Model Ensembles
Language model ensembles combine predictions or reasoning from multiple models to improve accuracy, reliability, coverage, or efficiency.
See all 134 papers