Active Learning (AL) addresses the high costs of collecting human annotations by strategically annotating the most informative samples.However, for subjective NLP tasks, incorporating a wide range of perspectives in the annotation process is crucial to capture the variability in human judgments.We introduce Annotator-Centric Active Learning (ACAL), which incorporates an annotator selection strategy following data sampling.Our objective is two-fold: (1) to efficiently approximate the full diversity of human judgments, and (2) to assess model performance using annotator-centric metrics, which value minority and majority perspectives equally.We experiment with multiple annotator selection strategies across seven subjective NLP tasks, employing both traditional and novel, human-centered evaluation metrics.Our findings indicate that ACAL improves data efficiency and excels in annotator-centric performance evaluations.However, its success depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and diverse pool of annotators to sample from.

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-The-Art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

We adopt an emerging and prominent vision of human-centred Artificial Intelligence that requires building trustworthy intelligent systems. Such systems should be capable of dealing with the challenges of an interconnected, globalised world by handling plurality and by abiding by human values. Within this vision, pluralistic value alignment is a core problem for AI– that is, the challenge of creating AI systems that align with a set of diverse individual value systems. So far, most literature on value alignment has considered alignment to a single value system. To address this research gap, we propose a novel method for estimating and aggregating multiple individual value systems. We rely on recent results in the social choice literature and formalise the value system aggregation problem as an optimisation problem. We then cast this problem as an ℓ_p-regression problem. Doing so provides a principled and general theoretical framework to model and solve the aggregation problem. Our aggregation method allows us to consider a range of ethical principles, from utilitarian (maximum utility) to egalitarian (maximum fairness). We illustrate the aggregation of value systems by considering real-world data from two case studies: the Participatory Value Evaluation process and the European Values Study. Our experimental evaluation shows how different consensus value systems can be obtained depending on the ethical principle of choice, leading to practical insights for a decision-maker on how to perform value system aggregation.

Values, such as freedom and safety, are the core motivations that guide us humans. A prerequisite for creating value-aligned multiagent systems that involve humans and artificial agents is value inference, the process of identifying values and reasoning about human value preferences. We introduce a framework that connects the value inference steps, and motivate why a hybrid intelligence approach is instrumental for its success. We also highlight the multidisciplinary research challenges that hybrid value inference entails.

Moral rhetoric influences our judgement. Although social scientists recognize moral expression as domain specific, there are no systematic methods for analyzing whether a text classifier learns the domain-specific expression of moral language or not. We propose Tomea, a method to compare a supervised classifier's representation of moral rhetoric across domains. Tomea enables quantitative and qualitative comparisons of moral rhetoric via an interpretable exploration of similarities and differences across moral concepts and domains. We apply Tomea on moral narratives in thirty-five thousand tweets from seven domains. We extensively evaluate the method via a crowd study, a series of cross-domain moral classification comparisons, and a qualitative analysis of cross-domain moral expression.

Moral values influence how we interpret and act upon the information we receive. Identifying human moral values is essential for artificially intelligent agents to co-exist with humans. Recent progress in natural language processing allows the identification of moral values in textual discourse. However, domain-specific moral rhetoric poses challenges for transferring knowledge from one domain to another. We provide the first extensive investigation on the effects of cross-domain classification of moral values from text. We compare a state-of-the-art deep learning model (BERT) in seven domains and four cross-domain settings. We show that a value classifier can generalize and transfer knowledge to novel domains, but it can introduce catastrophic forgetting. We also highlight the typical classification errors in cross-domain value classification and compare the model predictions to the annotators agreement. Our results provide insights to computer and social scientists that seek to identify moral rhetoric specific to a domain of discourse.

The key arguments underlying a large and noisy set of opinions help understand the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method, when compared on a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and machine intelligence.