Two Contrasting Data Annotation Paradigms for Subjective NLP Tasks (2022.naacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Labelled data is the foundation of most natural language processing tasks, but there are valid beliefs about what the correct data labels should be. |
| Approach: | They propose two contrasting paradigms for data annotation that encourage annotator subjectivity . they propose a descriptive paradigm that allows for the surveying and modelling of different beliefs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed paradigms encourage annotator subjectivity, while the prescriptive paradigm discourages it. |
Similar Papers
The Perspectivist Paradigm Shift: Assumptions and Challenges of Capturing Human Labels (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a line of recent work has illustrated that annotators disagree for many reasons . capturing disagreements can improve model performance and calibration, authors argue . |
| Approach: | They propose a new paradigm shift in data labeling for machine learning that challenges annotator disagreement by treating disagreement as a valuable source of information. |
| Outcome: | The proposed approaches challenge annotator disagreement and provide recommendations for the data labeling pipeline and avenues for future research. |
D3CODE: Disentangling Disagreements in Data across Cultures on Offensiveness Detection and Evaluation (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent studies on annotator subjectivity focus on Western contexts and only document differences across age, gender, or racial groups. |
| Approach: | They propose a large-scale cross-cultural dataset of parallel annotations for offensive language in over 4.5K English sentences annotated by a pool of more than 4k annotators from 21 countries. |
| Outcome: | The proposed dataset captures annotators’ moral values along six moral foundations: care, equality, proportionality, authority, loyalty, and purity. |
Agreeing to Disagree: Annotating Offensive Language Datasets with Annotators’ Disagreement (2021.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | supervised learning is a key component of offensive language detection, but there is little attention given to the quality of annotated data. |
| Approach: | They propose to examine the level of agreement among annotators while selecting data to create offensive language datasets, a task involving a high level of subjectivity. |
| Outcome: | The proposed datasets show that annotators' agreement has a strong effect on classifiers performance and robustness. |
Why Don’t You Do It Right? Analysing Annotators’ Disagreement in Subjective Tasks (2023.eacl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Disagreement can reflect different aspects of linguistic annotation, from annotators’ subjectivity to sloppiness or lack of context to interpret a text. |
| Approach: | They propose a taxonomy of possible reasons leading to annotators' disagreement in subjective tasks and manually label part of a Twitter dataset for offensive language detection in english following this taxonomies. |
| Outcome: | The proposed taxonomy of disagreements in linguistic datasets can be used to assess how accurate tweets belonging to different disagreement categories can be classified as offensive or not. |
Corpus Considerations for Annotator Modeling and Scaling (2024.naacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent trends in natural language processing and annotation tasks emphasize individual perspectives . annotator models that rely on a single ground truth may disregard valuable minority perspectives omissions . |
| Approach: | They propose a composite embedding approach to investigate annotator modeling techniques . they show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms more complex models on a given dataset. |
Are We Modeling the Task or the Annotator? An Investigation of Annotator Bias in Natural Language Understanding Datasets (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Having only a few workers generate the majority of dataset examples raises concerns about data diversity . |
| Approach: | They perform a series of experiments to investigate annotator biases in recent NLU datasets . they find that models are able to recognize the most productive annotators . |
| Outcome: | The results show that models can recognize the most productive annotators and do not generalize well to examples from annotator that did not contribute to the training set. |
A Comparison Of Emotion Annotation Schemes And A New Annotated Data Set (L18-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a series of study on positive/negative sentiments has been conducted on tweets, but recognition of more nuanced affect has received little attention . valence, arousal, dominance and surprise are the most commonly used emotion representation schemes . |
| Approach: | They propose to annotate tweets with scores on four emotion dimensions . they compare annotator agreement with relative annotation schemes over categorical ones . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves agreement with relative annotation schemes over categorical ones on Ekman's six basic emotions. |
The Promises and Pitfalls of LLM Annotations in Dataset Labeling: a Case Study on Media Bias Detection (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
Tomáš Horych, Christoph Mandl, Terry Ruas, Andre Greiner-Petter, Bela Gipp, Akiko Aizawa, Timo Spinde
| Challenge: | Recent research suggests using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the annotation process, reducing these costs while maintaining data quality. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models to automate annotation process and train classifiers on large datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all of the annotator LLMs on two media bias benchmark datasets (BABE and BASIL) while maintaining data quality. |
You Are What You Annotate: Towards Better Models through Annotator Representations (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Annotator disagreement is ubiquitous in natural language processing tasks. |
| Approach: | They propose to model annotators' idiosyncrasies and account for their idioms by creating representations for each annotator and their annotations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model improves on an existing dataset with eight annotators with inherent disagreements while increasing model size by 1%. |
Toxic, Hateful, Offensive or Abusive? What Are We Really Classifying? An Empirical Analysis of Hate Speech Datasets (2020.lrec-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a recent study shows that many definitions are being used for equivalent concepts, making most datasets incompatible. |
| Approach: | They analyze six publicly available datasets to determine their similarity and compatibility . they propose to use Fast Text word vectors to analyze similarity between different datasets . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model performs better on similar datasets and worse on more non-offensive samples. |