Semantic Gradients Interactions in SSD: A Case Study in Racial Identity and Hate Speech

Cross-cultural comparison of psychological meaning requires methods that go beyond word-level translation and examine how semantic dimensions are organized across languages. We introduce a cross-lingual extension of the Supervised Semantic Differential (SSD), which estimates supervised semantic gradients in embedding space and compares them across aligned multilingual word embeddings. The method tests gradient alignment and difference using permutation procedures and bootstrap intervals, and interprets residual differences through clustering around the difference gradient. We demonstrate the approach on Polish, English, and French affective norm lexicons, modeling Valence, Arousal, and Dominance where available. Affective dimensions were significantly recoverable across languages and model settings. Cross-lingual comparisons showed broad alignment together with structured residual differences: Valence appeared mostly shared, whereas Arousal and Dominance produced more interpretable contrasts involving bodily threat, aesthetic stimulation, internal emotionality, macro-level authority, and everyday control. Several clusters also reflected corpus-specific artifacts, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation. Cross-lingual SSD offers an explainable framework for testing semantic alignment, identifying divergence, and generating hypotheses about cross-cultural differences in psychological meaning.

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.