REVIEW 2 cited by
Fine-grained Fallacy Detection with Human Label Variation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Fine-grained Fallacy Detection with Human Label Variation
read the original abstract
We introduce Faina, the first dataset for fallacy detection that embraces multiple plausible answers and natural disagreement. Faina includes over 11K span-level annotations with overlaps across 20 fallacy types on social media posts in Italian about migration, climate change, and public health given by two expert annotators. Through an extensive annotation study that allowed discussion over multiple rounds, we minimize annotation errors whilst keeping signals of human label variation. Moreover, we devise a framework that goes beyond "single ground truth" evaluation and simultaneously accounts for multiple (equally reliable) test sets and the peculiarities of the task, i.e., partial span matches, overlaps, and the varying severity of labeling errors. Our experiments across four fallacy detection setups show that multi-task and multi-label transformer-based approaches are strong baselines across all settings. We release our data, code, and annotation guidelines to foster research on fallacy detection and human label variation more broadly.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Quantifying and Predicting Disagreement in Graded Human Ratings
Annotation disagreement on toxic language can be moderately predicted from textual features, with high-opposition items proving harder for models to estimate accurately.
-
Modeling Human Perspectives with Socio-Demographic Representations
Socio-Contrastive Learning jointly learns socio-demographic representations and textual features via contrastive objectives to predict annotator perspectives more accurately than concatenation baselines.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.