Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learning

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 \emph{CrowdOpinion}\footnote{Accepted for publication at ACL 2023}, 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 \emph{CrowdOpinion} as a label distribution prediction task using KL-divergence and a single-label problem using accuracy measures.

Vicarious Offense and Noise Audit of Offensive Speech Classifiers

This paper examines social web content moderation from two key perspectives: automated methods (machine moderators) and human evaluators (human moderators). We conduct a noise audit at an unprecedented scale using nine machine moderators trained on well-known offensive speech data sets evaluated on a corpus sampled from 92 million YouTube comments discussing a multitude of issues relevant to US politics. We introduce a first-of-its-kind data set of vicarious offense. We ask annotators: (1) if they find a given social media post offensive; and (2) how offensive annotators sharing different political beliefs would find the same content. Our experiments with machine moderators reveal that moderation outcomes wildly vary across different machine moderators. Our experiments with human moderators suggest that (1) political leanings considerably affect first-person offense perspective; (2) Republicans are the worst predictors of vicarious offense; (3) predicting vicarious offense for the Republicans is most challenging than predicting vicarious offense for the Independents and the Democrats; and (4) disagreement across political identity groups considerably increases when sensitive issues such as reproductive rights or gun control/rights are discussed. Both experiments suggest that offense, is indeed, highly subjective and raise important questions concerning content moderation practices.

Improving Label Quality by Jointly Modeling Items and Annotators

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 as: (1) a graphical model designed to provide better ground truth estimates of annotator responses as input to \emph{any} black box supervised learning algorithm, and (2) a standalone neural model whose internal structure captures many of the properties of the graphical model. We conduct supervised learning experiments using both models and compare them to the performance of one baseline and a state-of-the-art model.

Neighborhood-based Pooling for Population-level Label Distribution Learning

Supervised machine learning often requires human-annotated data. While annotator disagreement is typically interpreted as evidence of noise, population-level label distribution learning (PLDL) treats the collection of annotations for each data item as a sample of the opinions of a population of human annotators, among whom disagreement may be proper and expected, even with no noise present. From this perspective, a typical training set may contain a large number of very small-sized samples, one for each data item, none of which, by itself, is large enough to be considered representative of the underlying population's beliefs about that item. We propose an algorithmic framework and new statistical tests for PLDL that account for sampling size. We apply them to previously proposed methods for sharing labels across similar data items. We also propose new approaches for label sharing, which we call neighborhood-based pooling.