REVIEW 2 cited by
Are We Modeling the Task or the Annotator? An Investigation of Annotator Bias in Natural Language Understanding Datasets
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Crowdsourcing has been the prevalent paradigm for creating natural language understanding datasets in recent years. A common crowdsourcing practice is to recruit a small number of high-quality workers, and have them massively generate examples. Having only a few workers generate the majority of examples raises concerns about data diversity, especially when workers freely generate sentences. In this paper, we perform a series of experiments showing these concerns are evident in three recent NLP datasets. We show that model performance improves when training with annotator identifiers as features, and that models are able to recognize the most productive annotators. Moreover, we show that often models do not generalize well to examples from annotators that did not contribute to the training set. Our findings suggest that annotator bias should be monitored during dataset creation, and that test set annotators should be disjoint from training set annotators.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
From Jack of All Trades to Master of One: Specializing LLM-based Autoraters to a Test Set
Using per-example in-context demonstrations built from historical same-source human MQM ratings makes an LLM judge dramatically better at fine-grained MT evaluation on WMT'23 and WMT'24.
-
An Evaluation Dataset for Intent Classification and Out-of-Scope Prediction
The paper releases a 150-intent, 10-domain dialog corpus with dedicated out-of-scope queries and shows current classifiers detect those out-of-scope queries poorly.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.