Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Arguments
A. Homayounirad (TU Delft - Interactive Intelligence)
E. Liscio (TU Delft - Interactive Intelligence)
T. Wang (TU Delft - Design & Construction Management)
C.M. Jonker (TU Delft - Interactive Intelligence)
L.C. Siebert (TU Delft - Interactive Intelligence)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Aggregating multiple annotations into a single ground truth label may hide valuable insights into annotator disagreement, particularly in tasks where subjectivity plays a crucial role. In this work, we explore methods for identifying subjectivity in recognizing the human values that motivate arguments. We evaluate two main approaches: inferring subjectivity through value prediction vs. directly identifying subjectivity. Our experiments show that direct subjectivity identification significantly improves the model performance of flagging subjective arguments. Furthermore, combining contrastive loss with binary cross-entropy loss does not improve performance but reduces the dependency on per-label subjectivity. Our proposed methods can help identify arguments that individuals may interpret differently, fostering a more nuanced annotation process.