REVIEW 1 cited by
Interpreting Predictive Probabilities: Model Confidence or Human Label Variation?
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
With the rise of increasingly powerful and user-facing NLP systems, there is growing interest in assessing whether they have a good representation of uncertainty by evaluating the quality of their predictive distribution over outcomes. We identify two main perspectives that drive starkly different evaluation protocols. The first treats predictive probability as an indication of model confidence; the second as an indication of human label variation. We discuss their merits and limitations, and take the position that both are crucial for trustworthy and fair NLP systems, but that exploiting a single predictive distribution is limiting. We recommend tools and highlight exciting directions towards models with disentangled representations of uncertainty about predictions and uncertainty about human labels.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
"All that Glitters": Approaches to Evaluations with Unreliable Model and Human Annotations
Encoder models trained on noisy classroom ratings look super-human under standard concordance metrics, but generalizability, disattenuation, and hierarchical rater analyses show the apparent advantage is partly spurio...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.