Olufunke O. Sarumi

Olufunke O. Sarumi, Charles Welch, Daniel Braun

Beyond exploring disaggregated labels for modeling perspectives, annotator rationales provide fine-grained signals of individual perspectives. In this work, we propose a framework for jointly modeling annotator-specific label prediction and corresponding explanations, fine-tuned on the annotators' provided rationales. Using a dataset with disaggregated natural language inference (NLI) annotations and annotator-provided explanations, we condition predictions on both annotator identity and demographic metadata through a representation-level User Passport mechanism. We further introduce two explainer architectures: a post-hoc prompt-based explainer and a prefixed bridge explainer that transfers annotator-conditioned classifier representations directly into a generative model. This design enables explanation generation aligned with individual annotator perspectives. Our results show that incorporating explanation modeling substantially improves predictive performance over a baseline annotator-aware classifier, with the prefixed bridge approach achieving more stable label alignment and higher semantic consistency, while the post-hoc approach yields stronger lexical similarity. These findings indicate that modeling explanations as expressions of fine-grained perspective provides a richer and more faithful representation of disagreement. The proposed approaches advance perspectivist modeling by integrating annotator-specific rationales into both predictive and generative components.

Olufunke O. Sarumi, Béla Neuendorf, Joan Plepi et al.

Recent trends in natural language processing research and annotation tasks affirm a paradigm shift from the traditional reliance on a single ground truth to a focus on individual perspectives, particularly in subjective tasks. In scenarios where annotation tasks are meant to encompass diversity, models that solely rely on the majority class labels may inadvertently disregard valuable minority perspectives. This oversight could result in the omission of crucial information and, in a broader context, risk disrupting the balance within larger ecosystems. As the landscape of annotator modeling unfolds with diverse representation techniques, it becomes imperative to investigate their effectiveness with the fine-grained features of the datasets in view. This study systematically explores various annotator modeling techniques and compares their performance across seven corpora. From our findings, we show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models. We introduce a composite embedding approach and show distinct differences in which model performs best as a function of the agreement with a given dataset. Our findings shed light on the relationship between corpus statistics and annotator modeling performance, which informs future work on corpus construction and perspectivist NLP.

Olufunke O. Sarumi, Charles Welch, Lucie Flek et al.

In this work, we evaluate annotator disagreement in Word-in-Context (WiC) tasks exploring the relationship between contextual meaning and disagreement as part of the CoMeDi shared task competition. While prior studies have modeled disagreement by analyzing annotator attributes with single-sentence inputs, this shared task incorporates WiC to bridge the gap between sentence-level semantic representation and annotator judgment variability. We describe three different methods that we developed for the shared task, including a feature enrichment approach that combines concatenation, element-wise differences, products, and cosine similarity, Euclidean and Manhattan distances to extend contextual embedding representations, a transformation by Adapter blocks to obtain task-specific representations of contextual embeddings, and classifiers of varying complexities, including ensembles. The comparison of our methods demonstrates improved performance for methods that include enriched and task-specfic features. While the performance of our method falls short in comparison to the best system in subtask 1 (OGWiC), it is competitive to the official evaluation results in subtask 2 (DisWiC).

Olufunke O. Sarumi, Charles Welch, Daniel Braun et al.

In this work, we explore the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to annotate hate speech and abusiveness while considering predefined annotator personas within the strong-to-weak data perspectivism spectra. We evaluated LLM-generated annotations against existing annotator modeling techniques for perspective modeling. Our findings show that LLMs selectively use demographic attributes from the personas. We identified prototypical annotators, with persona features that show varying degrees of alignment with the original human annotators. Within the data perspectivism paradigm, annotator modeling techniques that do not explicitly rely on annotator information performed better under weak data perspectivism compared to both strong data perspectivism and human annotations, suggesting LLM-generated views tend towards aggregation despite subjective prompting. However, for more personalized datasets tailored to strong perspectivism, the performance of LLM annotator modeling approached, but did not exceed, human annotators.