Don't Blame the Data, Blame the Model: Understanding Noise and Bias When Learning from Subjective Annotations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.04085v1
• Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 22:30:04 GMT
• Title: Don't Blame the Data, Blame the Model: Understanding Noise and Bias When Learning from Subjective Annotations
• Authors: Abhishek Anand, Negar Mokhberian, Prathyusha Naresh Kumar, Anweasha Saha, Zihao He, Ashwin Rao, Fred Morstatter, Kristina Lerman
• Abstract summary: We show that models that are only provided aggregated labels show low confidence on high-disagreement data instances. Our experiments show an improvement of confidence for the high-disagreement instances.
• Score: 9.221081428960318
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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 aggregated labels show low confidence on high-disagreement data instances. While previous studies consider such instances as mislabeled, we argue that the reason the high-disagreement text instances have been hard-to-learn is that the conventional aggregated models underperform in extracting useful signals from subjective tasks. Inspired by recent studies demonstrating the effectiveness of learning from raw annotations, we investigate classifying using Multiple Ground Truth (Multi-GT) approaches. Our experiments show an improvement of confidence for the high-disagreement instances.

Related papers

• Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs) In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:16:00Z)
• Say My Name: a Model's Bias Discovery Framework [18.887645415907166]
  We introduce Say My Name'' (SaMyNa), the first tool to identify biases within deep models semantically. Unlike existing methods, our approach focuses on biases learned by the model. Our method can disentangle task-related information and proposes itself as a tool to analyze biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-18T18:50:59Z)
• Virtual Category Learning: A Semi-Supervised Learning Method for Dense Prediction with Extremely Limited Labels [63.16824565919966]
  This paper proposes to use confusing samples proactively without label correction. A Virtual Category (VC) is assigned to each confusing sample in such a way that it can safely contribute to the model optimisation. Our intriguing findings highlight the usage of VC learning in dense vision tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-02T16:23:52Z)
• 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)
• Late Stopping: Avoiding Confidently Learning from Mislabeled Examples [61.00103151680946]
  We propose a new framework, Late Stopping, which leverages the intrinsic robust learning ability of DNNs through a prolonged training process. We empirically observe that mislabeled and clean examples exhibit differences in the number of epochs required for them to be consistently and correctly classified. Experimental results on benchmark-simulated and real-world noisy datasets demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-26T12:43:25Z)
• Uncertainty-Aware Bootstrap Learning for Joint Extraction on Distantly-Supervised Data [36.54640096189285]
  bootstrap learning is motivated by the intuition that the higher uncertainty of an instance, the more likely the model confidence is inconsistent with the ground truths. We first explore instance-level data uncertainty to create an initial high-confident examples. During bootstrap learning, we propose self-ensembling as a regularizer to alleviate inter-model uncertainty produced by noisy labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T20:06:11Z)
• Split-PU: Hardness-aware Training Strategy for Positive-Unlabeled Learning [42.26185670834855]
  Positive-Unlabeled (PU) learning aims to learn a model with rare positive samples and abundant unlabeled samples. This paper focuses on improving the commonly-used nnPU with a novel training pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-30T05:48:31Z)
• Annotation Error Detection: Analyzing the Past and Present for a More Coherent Future [63.99570204416711]
  We reimplement 18 methods for detecting potential annotation errors and evaluate them on 9 English datasets. We define a uniform evaluation setup including a new formalization of the annotation error detection task. We release our datasets and implementations in an easy-to-use and open source software package.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-05T22:31:45Z)
• Robust Task-Oriented Dialogue Generation with Contrastive Pre-training and Adversarial Filtering [17.7709632238066]
  Data artifacts incentivize machine learning models to learn non-transferable generalizations. We investigate whether popular datasets such as MultiWOZ contain such data artifacts. We propose a contrastive learning based framework to encourage the model to ignore these cues and focus on learning generalisable patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T03:13:02Z)
• General Greedy De-bias Learning [163.65789778416172]
  We propose a General Greedy De-bias learning framework (GGD), which greedily trains the biased models and the base model like gradient descent in functional space. GGD can learn a more robust base model under the settings of both task-specific biased models with prior knowledge and self-ensemble biased model without prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-20T14:47:32Z)
• Learning What Makes a Difference from Counterfactual Examples and Gradient Supervision [57.14468881854616]
  We propose an auxiliary training objective that improves the generalization capabilities of neural networks. We use pairs of minimally-different examples with different labels, a.k.a counterfactual or contrasting examples, which provide a signal indicative of the underlying causal structure of the task. Models trained with this technique demonstrate improved performance on out-of-distribution test sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T02:47:49Z)

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.