3.8 Proceedings Paper

Aggregating Complex Annotations via Merging and Matching

出版社

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3447548.3467411

关键词

crowdsourcing; human annotation; labeling; aggregation

资金

  1. Micron Foundation
  2. Good Systems2, a UT Austin Grand Challenge to develop responsible AI technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study addresses the challenge of resolving annotator disagreement in complex annotation tasks and proposes a general aggregation model to support label merging across diverse tasks. Additionally, for multi-object annotation tasks that require multiple labels per item, the model provides a method to match annotator labels to entities to ensure only matching labels are aggregated.
Human annotations are critical for training and evaluating supervised learning models, yet annotators often disagree with one another, especially as annotation tasks increase in complexity. A common strategy to improve label quality is to ask multiple annotators to label the same item and then aggregate their labels. While many aggregation models have been proposed for simple annotation tasks, how can we reason about and resolve annotator disagreement for more complex annotation tasks (e.g., continuous, structured, or high-dimensional), without needing to devise a new aggregation model for every different complex annotation task? We address two distinct challenges in this work. Firstly, how can a general aggregation model support merging of complex labels across diverse annotation tasks? Secondly, for multi-object annotation tasks that require annotators to provide multiple labels for each item being annotated (e.g., labeling named-entities in a text or visual entities in an image), how do we match which annotator label refers to which entity, such that only matching labels are aggregated across annotators? Using general constructs for merging and matching, our model not only supports diverse tasks, but delivers equal or better results than prior aggregation models: general and task-specific.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据