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 groups, not noise. Thus, a crucial problem in hate speech detection is determining whether a statement is offensive to the demographic group that it targets, when that group may constitute a small fraction of the annotator pool. We construct a model that predicts individual annotator ratings on potentially offensive text and combines this information with the predicted target group of the text to model the opinions of target group members. We show gains across a range of metrics, including raising performance over the baseline by 22% at predicting individual annotators' ratings and by 33% at predicting variance among annotators, which provides a metric for model uncertainty downstream. We find that annotator ratings can be predicted using their demographic information and opinions on online content, without the need to track identifying annotator IDs that link each annotator to their ratings. We also find that use of non-invasive survey questions on annotators' online experiences helps to maximize privacy and minimize unnecessary collection of demographic information when predicting annotators' opinions.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Hate Speech DetectionSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Beyond Majority Voting: Agreement-Based Clustering to Model Annotator Perspectives in Subjective NLP Tasks
Disagreement in annotation is a common phenomenon in the development of NLP datasets and serves as a valuable source of insight. While majority voting remains the dominant strategy for aggregating labels, recent work has…
Emotion ClassificationHate Speech DetectionSentiment AnalysisSTABLEVAL: Disagreement-Aware and Stable Evaluation of AI Systems
Human evaluation remains the primary standard for assessing modern AI systems, yet annotator disagreement, bias, and variability make system rankings fragile under standard majority vote aggregation. Majority vote discar…
Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?
We examine diverging preferences in human-labeled preference datasets. We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes -- task underspecification, response style, refus…
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…
Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations
Majority voting and averaging are common approaches employed to resolve annotator disagreements and derive single ground truth labels from multiple annotations. However, annotators may systematically disagree with one an…
Binary Classification