ArticleScientific reports2026
Benchmarking explainable offensive language detection in Somali with human-annotated rationales.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Offensive language presents significant challenges on the internet and requires robust moderation. However, the efficacy of such moderation often depends on providing clear and interpretable justifications for each classification. Unfortunately, many existing datasets lack annotated rationales, and most detection models offer limited interpretability and transparency. These limitations hinder the development of trustworthy systems and the implementation of effective content moderation strategies. In this paper, we introduce SomOffXplain, an interpretable framework for detecting offensive language in Somali, which generates human-understandable explanations for its predictions. SomOffXplain performs span-level rationale extraction at both the word and phrase levels, enabling it to highlight text segments that support its predictions. Given that Somali is a low-resource language, we first construct a new benchmark dataset of 10,175 samples, each annotated with human-provided rationales. We evaluate our method against five fine-tuned pre-trained models using Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME). Additionally, we adapt four large language models (LLMs) through few-shot and zero-shot prompting to assess their ability to understand and produce rationales in Somali. Our proposed model demonstrates superiority in terms of explainability and predictive accuracy, exhibiting higher plausibility and faithfulness compared to the baselines. Furthermore, our results reveal that half of the state-of-the-art LLMs evaluated fail to generate high-quality rationales that align with human-annotated ground truth rationales, whereas LIME-based methods also prove to be weak explainers for Somali text. We believe our contributions support online safety, help prevent harassment in under-resourced language communities, enhance the trustworthiness of language models, and promote transparency in artificial intelligence systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.