iLab at SemEval-2023 Task 11 Le-Wi-Di: Modelling Disagreement or Modelling Perspectives?

Nikolas Vitsakis, Amit Parekh, Tanvi Dinkar, Gavin Abercrombie, Ioannis Konstas, Verena Rieser
{"title":"iLab at SemEval-2023 Task 11 Le-Wi-Di: Modelling Disagreement or Modelling Perspectives?","authors":"Nikolas Vitsakis, Amit Parekh, Tanvi Dinkar, Gavin Abercrombie, Ioannis Konstas, Verena Rieser","doi":"10.48550/arXiv.2305.06074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are two competing approaches for modelling annotator disagreement: distributional soft-labelling approaches (which aim to capture the level of disagreement) or modelling perspectives of individual annotators or groups thereof. We adapt a multi-task architecture which has previously shown success in modelling perspectives to evaluate its performance on the SEMEVAL Task 11. We do so by combining both approaches, i.e. predicting individual annotator perspectives as an interim step towards predicting annotator disagreement. Despite its previous success, we found that a multi-task approach performed poorly on datasets which contained distinct annotator opinions, suggesting that this approach may not always be suitable when modelling perspectives. Furthermore, our results explain that while strongly perspectivist approaches might not achieve state-of-the-art performance according to evaluation metrics used by distributional approaches, our approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual perspectives present in the data. We argue that perspectivist approaches are preferable because they enable decision makers to amplify minority views, and that it is important to re-evaluate metrics to reflect this goal.","PeriodicalId":444285,"journal":{"name":"International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.06074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

There are two competing approaches for modelling annotator disagreement: distributional soft-labelling approaches (which aim to capture the level of disagreement) or modelling perspectives of individual annotators or groups thereof. We adapt a multi-task architecture which has previously shown success in modelling perspectives to evaluate its performance on the SEMEVAL Task 11. We do so by combining both approaches, i.e. predicting individual annotator perspectives as an interim step towards predicting annotator disagreement. Despite its previous success, we found that a multi-task approach performed poorly on datasets which contained distinct annotator opinions, suggesting that this approach may not always be suitable when modelling perspectives. Furthermore, our results explain that while strongly perspectivist approaches might not achieve state-of-the-art performance according to evaluation metrics used by distributional approaches, our approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual perspectives present in the data. We argue that perspectivist approaches are preferable because they enable decision makers to amplify minority views, and that it is important to re-evaluate metrics to reflect this goal.
任务11:Le-Wi-Di:建模分歧还是建模视角?
有两种相互竞争的方法来对注释者的分歧进行建模:分布式软标签方法(旨在捕捉分歧的程度)或对单个注释者或其群体的观点进行建模。我们采用了一个多任务架构,该架构之前在建模透视图方面取得了成功,以评估其在SEMEVAL Task 11上的性能。我们通过结合两种方法来做到这一点,即预测单个注释者的观点,作为预测注释者分歧的过渡步骤。尽管之前取得了成功,但我们发现多任务方法在包含不同注释者意见的数据集上表现不佳,这表明该方法在建模视角时可能并不总是合适的。此外,我们的研究结果解释说,虽然根据分布方法使用的评估指标,强烈的视角主义方法可能无法实现最先进的性能,但我们的方法允许对数据中存在的个人视角进行更细致入微的理解。我们认为,透视主义方法是可取的,因为它们使决策者能够放大少数人的观点,重新评估指标以反映这一目标是很重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信