Multiperspectivity as a Resource for Narrative Similarity Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22103v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 15:32:40 GMT
• Title: Multiperspectivity as a Resource for Narrative Similarity Prediction
• Abstract summary: Different, equally valid readings of the same text can produce divergent interpretations and thus different similarity judgments.<n>We propose to incorporate this multiperspectivity in the decision making process of predictive systems.<n>Our experiments were conducted on the SemEval-2026 Task 4 dataset, where the system achieved an accuracy score of 0.705.
• Score: 5.242380995471618
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Predicting narrative similarity can be understood as an inherently interpretive task: different, equally valid readings of the same text can produce divergent interpretations and thus different similarity judgments, posing a fundamental challenge for semantic evaluation benchmarks that encode a single ground truth. Rather than treating this multiperspectivity as a challenge to overcome, we propose to incorporate it in the decision making process of predictive systems. To explore this strategy, we created an ensemble of 31 LLM personas. These range from practitioners following interpretive frameworks to more intuitive, lay-style characters. Our experiments were conducted on the SemEval-2026 Task 4 dataset, where the system achieved an accuracy score of 0.705. Accuracy improves with ensemble size, consistent with Condorcet Jury Theorem-like dynamics under weakened independence. Practitioner personas perform worse individually but produce less correlated errors, yielding larger ensemble gains under majority voting. Our error analysis reveals a consistent negative association between gender-focused interpretive vocabulary and accuracy across all persona categories, suggesting either attention to dimensions not relevant for the benchmark or valid interpretations absent from the ground truth. This finding underscores the need for evaluation frameworks that account for interpretive plurality.

Related papers

• Beyond Similarity: Grounded Agentic Extraction and Expert-Adjudicated Evaluation of Intertextuality in Classical Chinese Histories [3.694051864521789]
  We recast fine-grained intertextuality extraction as an agentic task in which a large language model reads two text units in full.<n>We validate the approach on an exhaustive comparison of the Analects with the Book of Han, where three domain experts adjudicate a pooled multi-model candidate set into a benchmark of 2,533 intertextual pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T02:34:23Z)
• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• Structured Disagreement in Health-Literacy Annotation: Epistemic Stability, Conceptual Difficulty, and Agreement-Stratified Inference [0.8252603363637361]
  Perspectivist approaches treat disagreement as potentially informative rather than erroneous.<n>We present a large-scale analysis of graded health-literacy annotations from 6,323 responses collected in Ecuador and Peru.<n>Key social-scientific effects, including country, education, and urban-rural differences, vary in magnitude and in some cases reverse direction across levels of inter-annotator agreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T19:45:16Z)
• More or Less Wrong: A Benchmark for Directional Bias in LLM Comparative Reasoning [10.301985230669684]
  We study the mechanisms by which semantic cues shape reasoning in large language models.<n>We introduce MathComp, a benchmark of 300 comparison scenarios.<n>We find that model errors frequently reflect linguistic steering, systematic shifts toward the comparative term present in the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T13:15:01Z)
• Large Language Models Often Say One Thing and Do Another [49.22262396351797]
  We develop a novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT)<n>The benchmark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and deed-based questions across different domains.<n>The evaluation results reveal a widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across different LLMs and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:34:54Z)
• RankCSE: Unsupervised Sentence Representations Learning via Learning to Rank [54.854714257687334]
  We propose a novel approach, RankCSE, for unsupervised sentence representation learning. It incorporates ranking consistency and ranking distillation with contrastive learning into a unified framework. An extensive set of experiments are conducted on both semantic textual similarity (STS) and transfer (TR) tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T08:27:07Z)
• Interpretable Automatic Fine-grained Inconsistency Detection in Text Summarization [56.94741578760294]
  We propose the task of fine-grained inconsistency detection, the goal of which is to predict the fine-grained types of factual errors in a summary. Motivated by how humans inspect factual inconsistency in summaries, we propose an interpretable fine-grained inconsistency detection model, FineGrainFact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T22:11:47Z)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• Counterfactual Reasoning for Out-of-distribution Multimodal Sentiment Analysis [56.84237932819403]
  This paper aims to estimate and mitigate the bad effect of textual modality for strong OOD generalization. Inspired by this, we devise a model-agnostic counterfactual framework for multimodal sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-24T03:57:40Z)
• Assaying Out-Of-Distribution Generalization in Transfer Learning [103.57862972967273]
  We take a unified view of previous work, highlighting message discrepancies that we address empirically. We fine-tune over 31k networks, from nine different architectures in the many- and few-shot setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-19T12:52:33Z)
• Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations [6.546195629698355]
  We investigate the efficacy of multi-annotator models for subjective tasks. We show that this approach yields same or better performance than aggregating labels in the data prior to training. Our approach also provides a way to estimate uncertainty in predictions, which we demonstrate better correlate with annotation disagreements than traditional methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-12T03:12:34Z)
• Robust Learning Through Cross-Task Consistency [92.42534246652062]
  We propose a broadly applicable and fully computational method for augmenting learning with Cross-Task Consistency. We observe that learning with cross-task consistency leads to more accurate predictions and better generalization to out-of-distribution inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-07T09:24:33Z)

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.