Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

ACTOR: Active Learning with Annotator-specific Classification Heads to Embrace 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

arxiv 2310.14979 v1 pith:WJ6HH3YX submitted 2023-10-23 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

ACTOR: Active Learning with Annotator-specific Classification Heads to Embrace Human Label Variation

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords learningactiveannotationdisagreementannotator-specificdatasetsestimationheads
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Label aggregation such as majority voting is commonly used to resolve annotator disagreement in dataset creation. However, this may disregard minority values and opinions. Recent studies indicate that learning from individual annotations outperforms learning from aggregated labels, though they require a considerable amount of annotation. Active learning, as an annotation cost-saving strategy, has not been fully explored in the context of learning from disagreement. We show that in the active learning setting, a multi-head model performs significantly better than a single-head model in terms of uncertainty estimation. By designing and evaluating acquisition functions with annotator-specific heads on two datasets, we show that group-level entropy works generally well on both datasets. Importantly, it achieves performance in terms of both prediction and uncertainty estimation comparable to full-scale training from disagreement, while saving up to 70% of the annotation budget.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Arguments

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    Directly predicting whether annotators will disagree on a value label outperforms inferring disagreement from per-annotator value predictions on the Touché23-ValueEval dataset.