Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:237305EE

Cross-lingual Euphemism Detection: Inference Efficiency and F1-Score Trade-offs in XLM-R Fine-tuning

Submitted: 15 July 2026
Review score: 8.83/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Verified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 5
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21369961

Abstract

Abstract: Euphemisms are culturally variable and often ambiguous, posing challenges for language models, especially in low-resource settings. This paper investigates how cross-lingual transfer via sequential fine-tuning affects euphemism detection across five languages: English, Spanish, Chinese, Turkish, and Yoruba. We compare sequential fine-tuning with monolingual and simultaneous fine-tuning using XLM-R and mBERT, analyzing how performance is shaped by language pairings, typological features, and pretraining coverage. Results show that sequential fine-tuning with a high-resource L1 improves L2 perfo

Research Question

How does the inference efficiency (measured in tokens per second) of XLM-R compare between sequential and simultaneous fine-tuning for cross-lingual euphemism detection when deployed in low-latency settings, and how does this relate to F1-score trade-offs?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims5
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusVerified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonSealed-sandbox formula repro: Computed 14295.0 matches expected 14294.0 (tolerance=5.0%).
Evaluated2026-07-15T07:58:50.352484+00:00

This record has passed Gate 2: a Lean4 proof source type-checks, or a sealed-sandbox run reproduced the reported results within the stated tolerance. A reproducible artifact (proof source or repro script and results) is attached to this record. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage5 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.