Benedetta Muscato

Benedetta Muscato, Beiduo Chen, Gizem Gezici et al.

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.

Gosse Minnema, Huiyuan Lai, Benedetta Muscato et al.

Different ways of linguistically expressing the same real-world event can lead to different perceptions of what happened. Previous work has shown that different descriptions of gender-based violence (GBV) influence the reader's perception of who is to blame for the violence, possibly reinforcing stereotypes which see the victim as partly responsible, too. As a contribution to raise awareness on perspective-based writing, and to facilitate access to alternative perspectives, we introduce the novel task of automatically rewriting GBV descriptions as a means to alter the perceived level of responsibility on the perpetrator. We present a quasi-parallel dataset of sentences with low and high perceived responsibility levels for the perpetrator, and experiment with unsupervised (mBART-based), zero-shot and few-shot (GPT3-based) methods for rewriting sentences. We evaluate our models using a questionnaire study and a suite of automatic metrics.

Benedetta Muscato, Praveen Bushipaka, Gizem Gezici et al.

Prior studies show that adopting the annotation diversity shaped by different backgrounds and life experiences and incorporating them into the model learning, i.e. multi-perspective approach, contribute to the development of more responsible models. Thus, in this paper we propose a new framework for designing and further evaluating perspective-aware models on stance detection task,in which multiple annotators assign stances based on a controversial topic. We also share a new dataset established through obtaining both human and LLM annotations. Results show that the multi-perspective approach yields better classification performance (higher F1-scores), outperforming the traditional approaches that use a single ground-truth, while displaying lower model confidence scores, probably due to the high level of subjectivity of the stance detection task.

Benedetta Muscato, Lucia Passaro, Gizem Gezici et al.

In the realm of Natural Language Processing (NLP), common approaches for handling human disagreement consist of aggregating annotators' viewpoints to establish a single ground truth. However, prior studies show that disregarding individual opinions can lead can lead to the side effect of underrepresenting minority perspectives, especially in subjective tasks, where annotators may systematically disagree because of their preferences. Recognizing that labels reflect the diverse backgrounds, life experiences, and values of individuals, this study proposes a new multi-perspective approach using soft labels to encourage the development of the next generation of perspective aware models, more inclusive and pluralistic. We conduct an extensive analysis across diverse subjective text classification tasks, including hate speech, irony, abusive language, and stance detection, to highlight the importance of capturing human disagreements, often overlooked by traditional aggregation methods. Results show that the multi-perspective approach not only better approximates human label distributions, as measured by Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD), but also achieves superior classification performance (higher F1 scores), outperforming traditional approaches. However, our approach exhibits lower confidence in tasks like irony and stance detection, likely due to the inherent subjectivity present in the texts. Lastly, leveraging Explainable AI (XAI), we explore model uncertainty and uncover meaningful insights into model predictions.

Benedetta Muscato, Praveen Bushipaka, Gizem Gezici et al.

Subjective NLP tasks usually rely on human annotations provided by multiple annotators, whose judgments may vary due to their diverse backgrounds and life experiences. Traditional methods often aggregate multiple annotations into a single ground truth, disregarding the diversity in perspectives that arises from annotator disagreement. In this preliminary study, we examine the effect of including multiple annotations on model accuracy in classification. Our methodology investigates the performance of perspective-aware classification models in stance detection task and further inspects if annotator disagreement affects the model confidence. The results show that multi-perspective approach yields better classification performance outperforming the baseline which uses the single label. This entails that designing more inclusive perspective-aware AI models is not only an essential first step in implementing responsible and ethical AI, but it can also achieve superior results than using the traditional approaches.