When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.06626v5
• Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:39:58 GMT
• Title: When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks
• Authors: Eve Fleisig, Rediet Abebe, Dan Klein,
• Abstract summary: A crucial problem in hate speech detection is determining whether a statement is offensive to a demographic group. We construct a model that predicts individual annotator ratings on potentially offensive text. We find that annotator ratings can be predicted using their demographic information and opinions on online content.
• Score: 45.14664901245331
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• CLAIR-A: Leveraging Large Language Models to Judge Audio Captions [73.51087998971418]
  evaluating machine-generated audio captions is a complex task that requires considering diverse factors. We propose CLAIR-A, a simple and flexible method that leverages the zero-shot capabilities of large language models. In our evaluations, CLAIR-A better predicts human judgements of quality compared to traditional metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T17:59:52Z)
• Voices in a Crowd: Searching for Clusters of Unique Perspectives [8.516397617576978]
  Proposed solutions aim to capture minority perspectives by either modelling annotator disagreements or grouping annotators based on shared metadata. We propose a framework that trains models without encoding annotator metadata, extracts latent embeddings informed by annotator behaviour, and creates clusters of similar opinions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T12:37:15Z)
• Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Tasks [9.110872603799839]
  Supervised classification heavily depends on datasets annotated by humans. In subjective tasks such as toxicity classification, these annotations often exhibit low agreement among raters. In this work, we propose textbfAnnotator Awares for Texts (AART) for subjective classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:18:32Z)
• Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learning [8.530934084017966]
  We introduce emphCrowdOpinion, an unsupervised learning approach that uses language features and label distributions to pool similar items into larger samples of label distributions. We use five publicly available benchmark datasets (with varying levels of annotator disagreements) from social media. We also experiment in the wild using a dataset from Facebook, where annotations come from the platform itself by users reacting to posts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T22:09:46Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Measuring the Effect of Influential Messages on Varying Personas [67.1149173905004]
  We present a new task, Response Forecasting on Personas for News Media, to estimate the response a persona might have upon seeing a news message. The proposed task not only introduces personalization in the modeling but also predicts the sentiment polarity and intensity of each response. This enables more accurate and comprehensive inference on the mental state of the persona.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T21:01:00Z)
• Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Information [11.227630261409706]
  We study whether the text of a task and annotators' demographic background information can be used to estimate the level of disagreement among annotators. Our results show that knowing annotators' demographic information, like gender, ethnicity, and education level, helps predict disagreements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-12T14:04:53Z)
• Reducing Target Group Bias in Hate Speech Detectors [56.94616390740415]
  We show that text classification models trained on large publicly available datasets, may significantly under-perform on several protected groups. We propose to perform token-level hate sense disambiguation, and utilize tokens' hate sense representations for detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-07T17:49:34Z)
• Constructing interval variables via faceted Rasch measurement and multitask deep learning: a hate speech application [63.10266319378212]
  We propose a method for measuring complex variables on a continuous, interval spectrum by combining supervised deep learning with the Constructing Measures approach to faceted Rasch item response theory (IRT) We demonstrate this new method on a dataset of 50,000 social media comments sourced from YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit and labeled by 11,000 U.S.-based Amazon Mechanical Turk workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-22T02:15:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.