Modeling Annotator Disagreement with Demographic-Aware Experts and Synthetic Perspectives
We present an approach to modeling annotator disagreement in subjective NLP tasks through both architectural and data-centric innovations. Our model, DEM-MoE (Demographic-Aware Mixture of Experts), routes inputs to expert subnetworks based on annotator demographics, enabling it to better represent structured, group-level variation compared to prior models. DEM-MoE consistently performs competitively across demographic groups, and shows especially strong results on datasets with high annotator disagreement. To address sparse demographic coverage, we test whether LLM-generated synthetic annotations via zero-shot persona prompting can be used for data imputation. We show these synthetic judgments align moderately well with human annotations on our data and offer a scalable way to potentially enrich training data. We then propose and evaluate approaches for blending real and synthetic data using strategies tailored to dataset structure. We find that the optimal strategies depend on dataset structure. Together, these contributions improve the representation of diverse perspectives.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
When Does Demographic Information Help? Data and Modeling Regimes for Perspective-Aware Hate Speech Detection
Demographic information is often used to model annotator perspectives in subjective tasks such as hate speech detection, but its benefit is inconsistent: it improves performance in some settings and behaves as noise in o…
Hate Speech DetectionLPI-RIT at LeWiDi-2025: Improving Distributional Predictions via Metadata and Loss Reweighting with DisCo
The Learning With Disagreements (LeWiDi) 2025 shared task aims to model annotator disagreement through soft label distribution prediction and perspectivist evaluation, which focuses on modeling individual annotators. We …
Learning Who Disagrees: Demographic Importance Weighting for Modeling Annotator Distributions with DiADEM
When humans label subjective content, they disagree, and that disagreement is not noise. It reflects genuine differences in perspective shaped by annotators' social identities and lived experiences. Yet standard practice…
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…
When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks
Though majority vote among annotators is typically used for ground truth labels in natural language processing, annotator disagreement in tasks such as hate speech detection may reflect differences in opinion across grou…
Hate Speech Detection