Among the problems with leaderboard culture in NLP has been the widespread lack of confidence estimation in reported results. In this work, we present a framework and simulator for estimating p-values for comparisons between the results of two systems, in order to understand the confidence that one is actually better (i.e. ranked higher) than the other. What has made this difficult in the past is that each system must itself be evaluated by comparison to a gold standard. We define a null hypothesis that each system’s metric scores are drawn from the same distribution, using variance found naturally (though rarely reported) in test set items and individual labels on an item (responses) to produce the metric distributions. We create a test set that evenly mixes the responses of the two systems under the assumption the null hypothesis is true. Exploring how to best estimate the true p-value from a single test set under different metrics, tests, and sampling methods, we find that the presence of response variance (from multiple raters or multiple model versions) has a profound impact on p-value estimates for model comparison, and that choice of metric and sampling method is critical to providing statistical guarantees on model comparisons.

Annotator disagreement is common whenever human judgment is needed for supervised learning. It is conventional to assume that one label per item represents ground truth. However, this obscures minority opinions, if present. We regard “ground truth” as the distribution of all labels that a population of annotators could produce, if asked (and of which we only have a small sample). We next introduce DisCo (Distribution from Context), a simple neural model that learns to predict this distribution. The model takes annotator-item pairs, rather than items alone, as input, and performs inference by aggregating over all annotators. Despite its simplicity, our experiments show that, on six benchmark datasets, our model is competitive with, and frequently outperforms, other, more complex models that either do not model specific annotators or were not designed for label distribution learning.

Offensive speech detection is a key component of content moderation. However, what is offensive can be highly subjective. This paper investigates how machine and human moderators disagree on what is offensive when it comes to real-world social web political discourse. We show that (1) there is extensive disagreement among the moderators (humans and machines); and (2) human and large-language-model classifiers are unable to predict how other human raters will respond, based on their political leanings. For (1), we conduct a ***noise audit*** at an unprecedented scale that combines both machine and human responses. For (2), we introduce a first-of-its-kind dataset of ***vicarious offense***. Our noise audit reveals that moderation outcomes vary wildly across different machine moderators. Our experiments with human moderators suggest that political leanings combined with sensitive issues affect both first-person and vicarious offense. The dataset is available through https://github.com/Homan-Lab/voiced.

Human-annotated data plays a critical role in the fairness of AI systems, including those that deal with life-altering decisions or moderating human-created web/social media content. Conventionally, annotator disagreements are resolved before any learning takes place. However, researchers are increasingly identifying annotator disagreement as pervasive and meaningful. They also question the performance of a system when annotators disagree. Particularly when minority views are disregarded, especially among groups that may already be underrepresented in the annotator population. In this paper, we introduce CrowdOpinion, an unsupervised learning based approach that uses language features and label distributions to pool similar items into larger samples of label distributions. We experiment with four generative and one density-based clustering method, applied to five linear combinations of label distributions and features. We use five publicly available benchmark datasets (with varying levels of annotator disagreements) from social media (Twitter, Gab, and Reddit). We also experiment in the wild using a dataset from Facebook, where annotations come from the platform itself by users reacting to posts. We evaluate CrowdOpinion as a label distribution prediction task using KL-divergence and a single-label problem using accuracy measures.

Annotator disagreement is often dismissed as noise or the result of poor annotation process quality. Others have argued that it can be meaningful. But lacking a rigorous statistical foundation, the analysis of disagreement patterns can resemble a high-tech form of tea-leaf-reading. We contribute a framework for analyzing the variation of per-item annotator response distributions to data for humans-in-the-loop machine learning. We provide visualizations for, and use the framework to analyze the variance in, a crowdsourced dataset of hard-to-classify examples from the OpenImages archive.

We propose a fully Bayesian framework for learning ground truth labels from noisy annotators. Our framework ensures scalability by factoring a generative, Bayesian soft clustering model over label distributions into the classic David and Skene joint annotator-data model. Earlier research along these lines has neither fully incorporated label distributions nor explored clustering by annotators only or data only. Our framework incorporates all of these properties within a graphical model designed to provide better ground truth estimates of annotator responses as input to any black box supervised learning algorithm. We conduct supervised learning experiments with variations of our models and compare them to the performance of several baseline models.

The widespread presence of offensive language on social media motivated the development of systems capable of recognizing such content automatically. Apart from a few notable exceptions, most research on automatic offensive language identification has dealt with English. To address this shortcoming, we introduce MOLD, the Marathi Offensive Language Dataset. MOLD is the first dataset of its kind compiled for Marathi, thus opening a new domain for research in low-resource Indo-Aryan languages. We present results from several machine learning experiments on this dataset, including zero-short and other transfer learning experiments on state-of-the-art cross-lingual transformers from existing data in Bengali, English, and Hindi.

This paper describes team LCP-RIT’s submission to the SemEval-2021 Task 1: Lexical Complexity Prediction (LCP). The task organizers provided participants with an augmented version of CompLex (Shardlow et al., 2020), an English multi-domain dataset in which words in context were annotated with respect to their complexity using a five point Likert scale. Our system uses logistic regression and a wide range of linguistic features (e.g. psycholinguistic features, n-grams, word frequency, POS tags) to predict the complexity of single words in this dataset. We analyze the impact of different linguistic features on the classification performance and we evaluate the results in terms of mean absolute error, mean squared error, Pearson correlation, and Spearman correlation.

This paper presents the results of the newstranslation task, the multilingual low-resourcetranslation for Indo-European languages, thetriangular translation task, and the automaticpost-editing task organised as part of the Con-ference on Machine Translation (WMT) 2021.In the news task, participants were asked tobuild machine translation systems for any of10 language pairs, to be evaluated on test setsconsisting mainly of news stories. The taskwas also opened up to additional test suites toprobe specific aspects of translation.

Low-resource languages present unique challenges to (neural) machine translation. We discuss the case of Bambara, a Mande language for which training data is scarce and requires significant amounts of pre-processing. More than the linguistic situation of Bambara itself, the socio-cultural context within which Bambara speakers live poses challenges for automated processing of this language. In this paper, we present the first parallel data set for machine translation of Bambara into and from English and French and the first benchmark results on machine translation to and from Bambara. We discuss challenges in working with low-resource languages and propose strategies to cope with data scarcity in low-resource machine translation (MT).

While labor issues and quality assurance in crowdwork are increasingly studied, how annotators make sense of texts and how they are personally impacted by doing so are not. We study these questions via a narrative-sorting annotation task, where carefully selected (by sequentiality, topic, emotional content, and length) collections of tweets serve as examples of everyday storytelling. As readers process these narratives, we measure their facial expressions, galvanic skin response, and self-reported reactions. From the perspective of annotator well-being, a reassuring outcome was that the sorting task did not cause a measurable stress response, however readers reacted to humor. In terms of sensemaking, readers were more confident when sorting sequential, target-topical, and highly emotional tweets. As crowdsourcing becomes more common, this research sheds light onto the perceptive capabilities and emotional impact of human readers.

Interpersonal violence (IPV) is a prominent sociological problem that affects people of all demographic backgrounds. By analyzing how readers interpret, perceive, and react to experiences narrated in social media posts, we explore an understudied source for discourse about abuse. We asked readers to annotate Reddit posts about relationships with vs. without IPV for stakeholder roles and emotion, while measuring their galvanic skin response (GSR), pulse, and facial expression. We map annotations to coreference resolution output to obtain a labeled coreference chain for stakeholders in texts, and apply automated semantic role labeling for analyzing IPV discourse. Findings provide insights into how readers process roles and emotion in narratives. For example, abusers tend to be linked with violent actions and certain affect states. We train classifiers to predict stakeholder categories of coreference chains. We also find that subjects’ GSR noticeably changed for IPV texts, suggesting that co-collected measurement-based data about annotators can be used to support text annotation.

University students in the United States are routinely asked to provide feedback on the quality of the instruction they have received. Such feedback is widely used by university administrators to evaluate teaching ability, despite growing evidence that students assign lower numerical scores to women and people of color, regardless of the actual quality of instruction. In this paper, we analyze students’ written comments on faculty evaluation forms spanning eight years and five STEM disciplines in order to determine whether open-ended comments reflect these same biases. First, we apply sentiment analysis techniques to the corpus of comments to determine the overall affect of each comment. We then use this information, in combination with other features, to explore whether there is bias in how students describe their instructors. We show that while the gender of the evaluated instructor does not seem to affect students’ expressed level of overall satisfaction with their instruction, it does strongly influence the language that they use to describe their instructors and their experience in class.