annotator disagreement

Many NLP tasks exhibit human label variation, where different annotators give different labels to the same texts. This variation is known to depend, at least in part, on the sociodemographics of annotators. Recent research aims to model individual annotator behaviour rather than predicting aggregated labels, and we would expect that sociodemographic information is useful for these models. On the other hand, the ecological fallacy states that aggregate group behaviour, such as the behaviour of the average female annotator, does not necessarily explain individual behaviour. To account for sociodemographics in models of individual annotator behaviour, we introduce group-specific layers to multi-annotator models. In a series of experiments for toxic content detection, we find that explicitly accounting for sociodemographic attributes in this way does not significantly improve model performance. This result shows that individual annotation behaviour depends on much more than just sociodemographics.

People often disagree on subjective tasks such as determining what is offensive or toxic online, where each annotator brings their own perspective influenced by factors like culture, identity, and lived experience. In many annotation settings today, however, we ask multiple people — who may have different beliefs — to provide just one label per example, treating majority vote as ground truth. We show how training models to capture individual annotator behavior instead yields better modeling of disagreement patterns among human raters.

Human variation in labeling is often considered noise. Annotation projects for machine learning (ML) aim at minimizing human label variation, with the assumption to maximize data quality and in turn optimize and maximize machine learning metrics. However, this conventional practice assumes that there exists a ground truth, and neglects that there exists genuine human variation in labeling due to disagreement, subjectivity in annotation or multiple plausible answers. In this position paper, we argue that this big open problem of human label variation persists and critically needs more attention to move our field forward. This is because human label variation impacts all stages of the ML pipeline: data, modeling and evaluation. However, few works consider all of these dimensions jointly; and existing research is fragmented. We reconcile different previously proposed notions of human label variation, provide a repository of publicly-available datasets with un-aggregated labels, depict approaches proposed so far, identify gaps and suggest ways forward. As datasets are becoming increasingly available, we hope that this synthesized view on the “problem” will lead to an open discussion on possible strategies to devise fundamentally new directions.