Explainable Agreement through Simulation for Tasks with Subjective Labels
The field of information retrieval often works with limited and noisy data in an attempt to classify documents into subjective categories, e.g., relevance, sentiment and controversy. We typically quantify a notion of agreement to understand the difficulty of the labeling task, but when we present final results, we do so using measures that are unaware of agreement or the inherent subjectivity of the task. We propose using user simulation to understand the effect size of this noisy agreement data. By simulating truth and predictions, we can understand the maximum scores a dataset can support: for if a classifier is doing better than a reasonable model of a human, we cannot conclude that it is actually better, but that it may be learning noise present in the dataset. We present a brief case study on controversy detection that concludes that a commonly-used dataset has been exhausted: in order to advance the state-of-the-art, more data must be gathered at the current level of label agreement in order to distinguish between techniques with confidence.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Information RetrievalRetrievalUser SimulationSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Information
In NLP annotation, it is common to have multiple annotators label the text and then obtain the ground truth labels based on the agreement of major annotators. However, annotators are individuals with different background…
Subjective Logic Encodings
Many existing approaches for learning from labeled data assume the existence of gold-standard labels. According to these approaches, inter-annotator disagreement is seen as noise to be removed, either through refinement …
Hate Speech DetectionSentiment AnalysisDon't Blame the Data, Blame the Model: Understanding Noise and Bias When Learning from Subjective Annotations
Researchers have raised awareness about the harms of aggregating labels especially in subjective tasks that naturally contain disagreements among human annotators. In this work we show that models that are only provided …
Crowd-Calibrator: Can Annotator Disagreement Inform Calibration in Subjective Tasks?
Subjective tasks in NLP have been mostly relegated to objective standards, where the gold label is decided by taking the majority vote. This obfuscates annotator disagreement and the inherent uncertainty of the label. We…
Decision MakingHate Speech DetectionNatural Language InferencePerspectives in Play: A Multi-Perspective Approach for More Inclusive NLP Systems
In the realm of Natural Language Processing (NLP), common approaches for handling human disagreement consist of aggregating annotators' viewpoints to establish a single ground truth. However, prior studies show that disr…
Abusive LanguageStance Detectiontext-classificationText Classification