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.

Similar Papers

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.
Unifying Data Perspectivism and Personalization: An Application to Social Norms (2022.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Obtaining a single ground truth is not possible or necessary for subjective tasks.
Approach: They propose a set of personalization methods to model annotators and compare their effectiveness for predicting social norms.
Outcome: The proposed model outperforms existing models and compares performance across subsets of social situations that vary by the closeness of the relationship between parties in conflict.
Beyond Black & White: Leveraging Annotator Disagreement via Soft-Label Multi-Task Learning (2021.naacl-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Prior work shows that disagreement between annotators can be useful in training models.
Approach: They propose to use disagreements as an auxiliary task in a multi-task neural network to incorporate disagreements into models.
Outcome: The proposed method significantly improves performance on NLP tasks beyond the standard approach and prior work.
Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations (2022.tacl-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Annotators may systematically disagree with one another, reflecting their individual biases and values, especially in the case of subjective tasks such as detecting affect, aggression, and hate speech.
Approach: They propose to combine multi-annotator models with multi-task based approaches to resolve disagreements between annotations and derive single ground truth labels.
Outcome: The proposed model outperforms majority voting and averaging methods and estimates uncertainty in predictions.
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%.
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.
Disagreement Matters: Preserving Label Diversity by Jointly Modeling Item and Annotator Label Distributions with DisCo (2023.findings-acl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: a recent study shows that annotator disagreement is common in supervised learning . a simple neural model that learns to predict annotators' labels is competitive with other models that do not model specific annotations.
Approach: They propose a neural model that learns to predict annotator distributions by aggregating over all annotators.
Outcome: The proposed model outperforms models that do not model specific annotators or do not learn label distribution learning.
PERSEVAL: A Framework for Perspectivist Classification Evaluation (2025.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Perspectivist evaluation practices in NLP remain fragmented and inconsistent .
Approach: They propose a framework that evaluates perspectivist models at the individual annotator level and treats annotators and users as distinct entities, consistent with real-world scenarios.
Outcome: The proposed framework evaluates annotators and users as distinct entities consistent with real-world scenarios.
Investigating Reasons for Disagreement in Natural Language Inference (2022.tacl-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Several disagreements in natural language inference (NLI) annotation are due to uncertainty in the sentence meaning, others to annotator biases and task artifacts.
Approach: They propose a 4-way classification approach and a multilabel classification approach for detecting disagreements in natural language inference annotations.
Outcome: The proposed model is more expressive and gives better recall of possible interpretations in the data.
The “Problem” of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluation (2022.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: a paper argues that human label variation impacts all stages of the ML pipeline . human label variations are often considered noise due to disagreement, subjectivity in annotation or multiple plausible answers.
Approach: They propose to reconcile different notions of human label variation and propose a repository of publicly-available datasets with un-aggregated labels.
Outcome: The proposed approaches are compared with publicly available datasets with un-aggregated labels and identify gaps.

What is GenGO?

GenGO is an NLP powered publication search system. It currenctly indexes 30k+ papers from ACL Anthology, and implements multi-aspect summarization, semantic search, and more!

Information

About
Limitations