Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10189v1
• Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 22:09:46 GMT
• Title: Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learning
• Authors: Tharindu Cyril Weerasooriya, Sarah Luger, Saloni Poddar, Ashiqur R. KhudaBukhsh, Christopher M. Homan
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 8.530934084017966
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human-annotated data plays a critical role in the fairness of AI systems, including those that deal with life-altering decisions or moderating human-created web/social media content. Conventionally, annotator disagreements are resolved before any learning takes place. However, researchers are increasingly identifying annotator disagreement as pervasive and meaningful. They also question the performance of a system when annotators disagree. Particularly when minority views are disregarded, especially among groups that may already be underrepresented in the annotator population. In this paper, we introduce \emph{CrowdOpinion}\footnote{Accepted for publication at ACL 2023}, an unsupervised learning based approach that uses language features and label distributions to pool similar items into larger samples of label distributions. We experiment with four generative and one density-based clustering method, applied to five linear combinations of label distributions and features. We use five publicly available benchmark datasets (with varying levels of annotator disagreements) from social media (Twitter, Gab, and Reddit). We also experiment in the wild using a dataset from Facebook, where annotations come from the platform itself by users reacting to posts. We evaluate \emph{CrowdOpinion} as a label distribution prediction task using KL-divergence and a single-label problem using accuracy measures.

Related papers

• 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)
• JointMatch: A Unified Approach for Diverse and Collaborative Pseudo-Labeling to Semi-Supervised Text Classification [65.268245109828]
  Semi-supervised text classification (SSTC) has gained increasing attention due to its ability to leverage unlabeled data. Existing approaches based on pseudo-labeling suffer from the issues of pseudo-label bias and error accumulation. We propose JointMatch, a holistic approach for SSTC that addresses these challenges by unifying ideas from recent semi-supervised learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T05:43:35Z)
• 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)
• Dist-PU: Positive-Unlabeled Learning from a Label Distribution Perspective [89.5370481649529]
  We propose a label distribution perspective for PU learning in this paper. Motivated by this, we propose to pursue the label distribution consistency between predicted and ground-truth label distributions. Experiments on three benchmark datasets validate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-06T07:38:29Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)
• Learning from Crowds with Sparse and Imbalanced Annotations [29.596070201105274]
  crowdsourcing has established itself as an efficient labeling solution through resorting to non-expert crowds. One common practice is to distribute each instance to multiple workers, whereas each worker only annotates a subset of data, resulting in the it sparse annotation phenomenon. We propose one self-training based approach named it Self-Crowd by progressively adding confident pseudo-annotations and rebalancing the annotation distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-11T13:06:20Z)
• Disentangling Sampling and Labeling Bias for Learning in Large-Output Spaces [64.23172847182109]
  We show that different negative sampling schemes implicitly trade-off performance on dominant versus rare labels. We provide a unified means to explicitly tackle both sampling bias, arising from working with a subset of all labels, and labeling bias, which is inherent to the data due to label imbalance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-12T15:40:13Z)
• Balancing Biases and Preserving Privacy on Balanced Faces in the Wild [50.915684171879036]
  There are demographic biases present in current facial recognition (FR) models. We introduce our Balanced Faces in the Wild dataset to measure these biases across different ethnic and gender subgroups. We find that relying on a single score threshold to differentiate between genuine and imposters sample pairs leads to suboptimal results. We propose a novel domain adaptation learning scheme that uses facial features extracted from state-of-the-art neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-16T15:05:49Z)
• Measuring Model Biases in the Absence of Ground Truth [2.802021236064919]
  We introduce a new framing to the measurement of fairness and bias that does not rely on ground truth labels. Instead, we treat the model predictions for a given image as a set of labels, analogous to a 'bag of words' approach used in Natural Language Processing (NLP) We demonstrate how the statistical properties (especially normalization) of the different association metrics can lead to different sets of labels detected as having "gender bias"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-05T01:23:22Z)
• Contrastive Examples for Addressing the Tyranny of the Majority [83.93825214500131]
  We propose to create a balanced training dataset, consisting of the original dataset plus new data points in which the group memberships are intervened. We show that current generative adversarial networks are a powerful tool for learning these data points, called contrastive examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T14:06:44Z)
• Neighborhood-based Pooling for Population-level Label Distribution Learning [5.790608871289107]
  Supervised machine learning often requires human-annotated data. Population-level label distribution learning treats the collection of annotations for each data item as a sample of the opinions of a population of human annotators. We propose an algorithmic framework and new statistical tests for PLDL that account for sampling size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-16T18:52:56Z)

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.