Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11318v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 19:45:17 GMT
• Title: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation
• Authors: Sheza Munir, Benjamin Mah, Krisha Kalsi, Shivani Kapania, Julian Posada, Edith Law, Ding Wang, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed,
• Abstract summary: In machine learning, "ground truth" refers to the assumed correct labels used to train and evaluate models.<n>This systematic literature review analyzes research published between 2020 and 2025 across seven premier venues.
• Score: 23.545262620377887
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In machine learning, "ground truth" refers to the assumed correct labels used to train and evaluate models. However, the foundational "ground truth" paradigm rests on a positivistic fallacy that treats human disagreement as technical noise rather than a vital sociotechnical signal. This systematic literature review analyzes research published between 2020 and 2025 across seven premier venues: ACL, AIES, CHI, CSCW, EAAMO, FAccT, and NeurIPS, investigating the mechanisms in data annotation practices that facilitate this "consensus trap". Our identification phase captured 30,897 records, which were refined via a tiered keyword filtration schema to a high-recall corpus of 3,042 records for manual screening, resulting in a final included corpus of 346 papers for qualitative synthesis. Our reflexive thematic analysis reveals that systemic failures in positional legibility, combined with the recent architectural shift toward human-as-verifier models, specifically the reliance on model-mediated annotations, introduce deep-seated anchoring bias and effectively remove human voices from the loop. We further demonstrate how geographic hegemony imposes Western norms as universal benchmarks, often enforced by the performative alignment of precarious data workers who prioritize requester compliance over honest subjectivity to avoid economic penalties. Critiquing the "noisy sensor" fallacy, where statistical models misdiagnose cultural pluralism as random error, we argue for reclaiming disagreement as a high-fidelity signal essential for building culturally competent models. To address these systemic tensions, we propose a roadmap for pluralistic annotation infrastructures that shift the objective from discovering a singular "right" answer to mapping the diversity of human experience.

Related papers

• RHINO: Guided Reasoning for Mapping Network Logs to Adversarial Tactics and Techniques with Large Language Models [9.065322387043546]
  We introduce RHINO, a framework that decomposes Large Language Models into three interpretable phases mirroring human reasoning.<n> RHINO bridges the semantic gap between low-level observations and adversarial intent while improving output reliability through structured reasoning.<n>Our results demonstrate that RHINO significantly enhances the interpretability and scalability of threat analysis, offering a blueprint for deploying LLMs in operational security settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T02:25:46Z)
• A Critical Review of the Need for Knowledge-Centric Evaluation of Quranic Recitation [0.9332987715848714]
  The sacred practice of Quranic recitation (Tajweed) faces significant pedagogical challenges in the modern era.<n>While digital technologies promise unprecedented access to education, automated tools for evaluation have failed to achieve widespread adoption or pedagogical efficacy.<n>This review concludes that the future of automated Quranic evaluation lies in hybrid systems that integrate deep linguistic knowledge with advanced audio analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T13:39:49Z)
• Explain Before You Answer: A Survey on Compositional Visual Reasoning [74.27548620675748]
  Compositional visual reasoning has emerged as a key research frontier in multimodal AI.<n>This survey systematically reviews 260+ papers from top venues (CVPR, ICCV, NeurIPS, ICML, ACL, etc.)<n>We then catalog 60+ benchmarks and corresponding metrics that probe compositional visual reasoning along dimensions such as grounding accuracy, chain-of-thought faithfulness, and high-resolution perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-24T11:01:51Z)
• Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models [57.834711966432685]
  Bullshit, as conceptualized by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, refers to statements made without regard to their truth value.<n>We introduce the Bullshit Index, a novel metric quantifying large language model's indifference to truth.<n>We observe prevalent machine bullshit in political contexts, with weasel words as the dominant strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T07:11:57Z)
• Fair Deepfake Detectors Can Generalize [51.21167546843708]
  We show that controlling for confounders (data distribution and model capacity) enables improved generalization via fairness interventions.<n>Motivated by this insight, we propose Demographic Attribute-insensitive Intervention Detection (DAID), a plug-and-play framework composed of: i) Demographic-aware data rebalancing, which employs inverse-propensity weighting and subgroup-wise feature normalization to neutralize distributional biases; and ii) Demographic-agnostic feature aggregation, which uses a novel alignment loss to suppress sensitive-attribute signals.<n>DAID consistently achieves superior performance in both fairness and generalization compared to several state-of-the-art
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T14:10:02Z)
• Preference Learning for AI Alignment: a Causal Perspective [55.2480439325792]
  We frame this problem in a causal paradigm, providing the rich toolbox of causality to identify persistent challenges.<n>Inheriting from the literature of causal inference, we identify key assumptions necessary for reliable generalisation.<n>We illustrate failure modes of naive reward models and demonstrate how causally-inspired approaches can improve model robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T10:45:42Z)
• BiasLab: Toward Explainable Political Bias Detection with Dual-Axis Annotations and Rationale Indicators [0.0]
  BiasLab is a dataset of 300 political news articles annotated for perceived ideological bias.<n>Each article is labeled by crowdworkers along two independent scales, assessing sentiment toward the Democratic and Republican parties.<n>We quantify inter-annotator agreement, analyze misalignment with source-level outlet bias, and organize the resulting labels into interpretable subsets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T23:50:42Z)
• Unsupervised dense retrieval with conterfactual contrastive learning [16.679649921935482]
  We propose to improve the robustness of dense retrieval models by enhancing their sensitivity of fine-graned relevance signals.<n>A model achieving sensitivity in this context should exhibit high variances when documents' key passages determining their relevance to queries have been modified.<n>Motivated by causality and counterfactual analysis, we propose a series of counterfactual regularization methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T07:01:34Z)
• HyPoradise: An Open Baseline for Generative Speech Recognition with Large Language Models [81.56455625624041]
  We introduce the first open-source benchmark to utilize external large language models (LLMs) for ASR error correction. The proposed benchmark contains a novel dataset, HyPoradise (HP), encompassing more than 334,000 pairs of N-best hypotheses. LLMs with reasonable prompt and its generative capability can even correct those tokens that are missing in N-best list.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T14:44:10Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Robust and Explainable Identification of Logical Fallacies in Natural Language Arguments [5.850977561881791]
  We formalize prior theoretical work on logical fallacies into a comprehensive three-stage evaluation framework. We employ three families of robust and explainable methods based on prototype reasoning, instance-based reasoning, and knowledge injection. We extensively evaluate these methods on our datasets, focusing on their robustness and explainability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-12T20:27:17Z)

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.