mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Rethinking Crowd Sourcing for Semantic Similarity

arXiv 2109.11969 ↗First posted 24 Sep 2021cs.CL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Estimation of semantic similarity is crucial for a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. In the absence of a general theory of semantic information, many papers rely on human annotators as the source of ground truth for semantic similarity estimation. This paper investigates the ambiguities inherent in crowd-sourced semantic labeling. It shows that annotators that treat semantic similarity as a binary category (two sentences are either similar or not similar and there is no middle ground) play the most important role in the labeling. The paper offers heuristics to filter out unreliable annotators and stimulates further discussions on human perception of semantic similarity.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2021.

Builds on

10 of 30 references.

References · 10

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  2. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  3. 2016FastText.zip: Compressing text classification modelscited by 331
  4. 2018Dear Sir or Madam, May I introduce the GYAFC Dataset: Corpus, Benchmarks and Metrics for Formality Style Transfercited by 209
  5. 2017Style Transfer in Text: Exploration and Evaluationcited by 145
  6. 2020Style-transfer and Paraphrase: Looking for a Sensible Semantic Similarity Metriccited by 23
  7. 2019Style Transfer for Texts: Retrain, Report Errors, Compare with Rewritescited by 19
  8. 2018Structured Content Preservation for Unsupervised Text Style Transfercited by 10
  9. 2018What is wrong with style transfer for texts?cited by 4
  10. 2019Don't Blame Distributional Semantics if it can't do Entailmentcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2.

2 papers.