Reducing annotator bias by belief elicitation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15726v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:44:01 GMT
• Title: Reducing annotator bias by belief elicitation
• Authors: Terne Sasha Thorn Jakobsen, Andreas Bjerre-Nielsen, Robert Böhm,
• Abstract summary: We propose a simple method for handling bias in annotations without requirements on the number of annotators or instances. We ask annotators about their beliefs of other annotators' judgements of an instance, under the hypothesis that these beliefs may provide more representative labels than judgements. The results indicate that bias, defined as systematic differences between the two groups of annotators, is consistently reduced when asking for beliefs instead of judgements.
• Score: 3.0040661953201475
• License:
• Abstract: Crowdsourced annotations of data play a substantial role in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). It is broadly recognised that annotations of text data can contain annotator bias, where systematic disagreement in annotations can be traced back to differences in the annotators' backgrounds. Being unaware of such annotator bias can lead to representational bias against minority group perspectives and therefore several methods have been proposed for recognising bias or preserving perspectives. These methods typically require either a substantial number of annotators or annotations per data instance. In this study, we propose a simple method for handling bias in annotations without requirements on the number of annotators or instances. Instead, we ask annotators about their beliefs of other annotators' judgements of an instance, under the hypothesis that these beliefs may provide more representative and less biased labels than judgements. The method was examined in two controlled, survey-based experiments involving Democrats and Republicans (n=1,590) asked to judge statements as arguments and then report beliefs about others' judgements. The results indicate that bias, defined as systematic differences between the two groups of annotators, is consistently reduced when asking for beliefs instead of judgements. Our proposed method therefore has the potential to reduce the risk of annotator bias, thereby improving the generalisability of AI systems and preventing harm to unrepresented socio-demographic groups, and we highlight the need for further studies of this potential in other tasks and downstream applications.

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)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Self-supervised debiasing using low rank regularization [59.84695042540525]
  Spurious correlations can cause strong biases in deep neural networks, impairing generalization ability. We propose a self-supervised debiasing framework potentially compatible with unlabeled samples. Remarkably, the proposed debiasing framework significantly improves the generalization performance of self-supervised learning baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T08:26:19Z)
• Power of Explanations: Towards automatic debiasing in hate speech detection [19.26084350822197]
  Hate speech detection is a common downstream application of natural language processing (NLP) in the real world. We propose an automatic misuse detector (MiD) relying on an explanation method for detecting potential bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T14:14:03Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• More Data Can Lead Us Astray: Active Data Acquisition in the Presence of Label Bias [7.506786114760462]
  Proposed bias mitigation strategies typically overlook the bias presented in the observed labels. We first present an overview of different types of label bias in the context of supervised learning systems. We then empirically show that, when overlooking label bias, collecting more data can aggravate bias, and imposing fairness constraints that rely on the observed labels in the data collection process may not address the problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T19:30:50Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Reduction via Causal View of Spurious Correlation [71.9123886505321]
  We propose an information-theoretic bias measurement technique through a causal interpretation of spurious correlation. We present a novel debiasing framework against the algorithmic bias, which incorporates a bias regularization loss. The proposed bias measurement and debiasing approaches are validated in diverse realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-10T01:19:31Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review [38.726731935235584]
  We introduce a novel framework to quantify bias in text caused by the visibility of subgroup membership indicators. We apply our framework to quantify biases in the text of peer reviews from a reputed machine learning conference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-29T01:24:19Z)

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.