Julia Romberg

Philipp Heinisch, Matthias Orlikowski, Julia Romberg et al.

Many annotation tasks in natural language processing are highly subjective in that there can be different valid and justified perspectives on what is a proper label for a given example. This also applies to the judgment of argument quality, where the assignment of a single ground truth is often questionable. At the same time, there are generally accepted concepts behind argumentation that form a common ground. To best represent the interplay of individual and shared perspectives, we consider a continuum of approaches ranging from models that fully aggregate perspectives into a majority label to "share nothing"-architectures in which each annotator is considered in isolation from all other annotators. In between these extremes, inspired by models used in the field of recommender systems, we investigate the extent to which architectures that include layers to model the relations between different annotators are beneficial for predicting single-annotator labels. By means of two tasks of argument quality classification (argument concreteness and validity/novelty of conclusions), we show that recommender architectures increase the averaged annotator-individual F$_1$-scores up to $43\%$ over a majority label model. Our findings indicate that approaches to subjectivity can benefit from relating individual perspectives.

Julia Romberg, Christopher Schröder, Julius Gonsior et al.

Supervised learning relies on data annotation which usually is time-consuming and therefore expensive. A longstanding strategy to reduce annotation costs is active learning, an iterative process, in which a human annotates only data instances deemed informative by a model. Research in active learning has made considerable progress, especially with the rise of large language models (LLMs). However, we still know little about how these remarkable advances have translated into real-world applications, or contributed to removing key barriers to active learning adoption. To fill in this gap, we conduct an online survey in the NLP community to collect previously intangible insights on current implementation practices, common obstacles in application, and future prospects in active learning. We also reassess the perceived relevance of data annotation and active learning as fundamental assumptions. Our findings show that data annotation is expected to remain important and active learning to stay relevant while benefiting from LLMs. Consistent with a community survey from over 15 years ago, three key challenges yet persist -- setup complexity, uncertain cost reduction, and tooling -- for which we propose alleviation strategies. We publish an anonymized version of the dataset.

Julia Romberg, Maximilian Maurer, Henning Wachsmuth et al.

The assessment of argument quality depends on well-established logical, rhetorical, and dialectical properties that are unavoidably subjective: multiple valid assessments may exist, there is no unequivocal ground truth. This aligns with recent paths in machine learning, which embrace the co-existence of different perspectives. However, this potential remains largely unexplored in NLP research on argument quality. One crucial reason seems to be the yet unexplored availability of suitable datasets. We fill this gap by conducting a systematic review of argument quality datasets. We assign them to a multi-layered categorization targeting two aspects: (a) What has been annotated: we collect the quality dimensions covered in datasets and consolidate them in an overarching taxonomy, increasing dataset comparability and interoperability. (b) Who annotated: we survey what information is given about annotators, enabling perspectivist research and grounding our recommendations for future actions. To this end, we discuss datasets suitable for developing perspectivist models (i.e., those containing individual, non-aggregated annotations), and we showcase the importance of a controlled selection of annotators in a pilot study.