Donate or Create? Comparing Data Collection Strategies for Emotion-labeled Multimodal Social Media Posts

Accurate modeling of subjective phenomena such as emotion expression requires data annotated with authors' intentions. Commonly such data is collected by asking study participants to donate and label genuine content produced in the real world, or create content fitting particular labels during the study. Asking participants to create content is often simpler to implement and presents fewer risks to participant privacy than data donation. However, it is unclear if and how study-created content may differ from genuine content, and how differences may impact models. We collect study-created and genuine multimodal social media posts labeled for emotion and compare them on several dimensions, including model performance. We find that compared to genuine posts, study-created posts are longer, rely more on their text and less on their images for emotion expression, and focus more on emotion-prototypical events. The samples of participants willing to donate versus create posts are demographically different. Study-created data is valuable to train models that generalize well to genuine data, but realistic effectiveness estimates require genuine data.

Which Demographics do LLMs Default to During Annotation?

Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation -- for instance, an elderly woman might find it offensive to read a message addressed to a "bro", but a male teenager might find it appropriate. It is therefore important to acknowledge label variations to not under-represent members of a society. Two research directions developed out of this observation in the context of using large language models (LLM) for data annotations, namely (1) studying biases and inherent knowledge of LLMs and (2) injecting diversity in the output by manipulating the prompt with demographic information. We combine these two strands of research and ask the question to which demographics an LLM resorts to when no demographics is given. To answer this question, we evaluate which attributes of human annotators LLMs inherently mimic. Furthermore, we compare non-demographic conditioned prompts and placebo-conditioned prompts (e.g., "you are an annotator who lives in house number 5") to demographics-conditioned prompts ("You are a 45 year old man and an expert on politeness annotation. How do you rate {instance}"). We study these questions for politeness and offensiveness annotations on the POPQUORN data set, a corpus created in a controlled manner to investigate human label variations based on demographics which has not been used for LLM-based analyses so far. We observe notable influences related to gender, race, and age in demographic prompting, which contrasts with previous studies that found no such effects.

"You are an expert annotator": Automatic Best-Worst-Scaling Annotations for Emotion Intensity Modeling

Labeling corpora constitutes a bottleneck to create models for new tasks or domains. Large language models mitigate the issue with automatic corpus labeling methods, particularly for categorical annotations. Some NLP tasks such as emotion intensity prediction, however, require text regression, but there is no work on automating annotations for continuous label assignments. Regression is considered more challenging than classification: The fact that humans perform worse when tasked to choose values from a rating scale lead to comparative annotation methods, including best-worst scaling. This raises the question if large language model-based annotation methods show similar patterns, namely that they perform worse on rating scale annotation tasks than on comparative annotation tasks. To study this, we automate emotion intensity predictions and compare direct rating scale predictions, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling. We find that the latter shows the highest reliability. A transformer regressor fine-tuned on these data performs nearly on par with a model trained on the original manual annotations.