mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Noise Audits Improve Moral Foundation Classification

arXiv 2210.07415 ↗First posted 13 Oct 2022cs.CL cs.CYcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Morality plays an important role in culture, identity, and emotion. Recent advances in natural language processing have shown that it is possible to classify moral values expressed in text at scale. Morality classification relies on human annotators to label the moral expressions in text, which provides training data to achieve state-of-the-art performance. However, these annotations are inherently subjective and some of the instances are hard to classify, resulting in noisy annotations due to error or lack of agreement. The presence of noise in training data harms the classifier's ability to accurately recognize moral foundations from text. We propose two metrics to audit the noise of annotations. The first metric is entropy of instance labels, which is a proxy measure of annotator disagreement about how the instance should be labeled. The second metric is the silhouette coefficient of a label assigned by an annotator to an instance. This metric leverages the idea that instances with the same label should have similar latent representations, and deviations from collective judgments are indicative of errors. Our experiments on three widely used moral foundations datasets show that removing noisy annotations based on the proposed metrics improves classification performance.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2022.

Builds on

14 of 35 references.

References · 14

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 36,960
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  4. 2018An Empirical Study of Example Forgetting during Deep Neural Network Learningcited by 669
  5. 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 423
  6. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 306
  7. 2020Identifying Mislabeled Data using the Area Under the Margin Rankingcited by 259
  8. 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 258
  9. 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 123
  10. 2021Whose Ground Truth? Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Dataset Annotationcited by 51
  11. 2020Moral Framing and Ideological Bias of Newscited by 29
  12. 2022The Moral Foundations Reddit Corpuscited by 20
2 more
  1. 2020Contextualized moral inferencecited by 6
  2. 2021Assessing the Quality of the Datasets by Identifying Mislabeled Samplescited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 2.

7 papers.