D3CODE: Disentangling Disagreements in Data across Cultures on Offensiveness Detection and Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
While human annotations play a crucial role in language technologies, annotator subjectivity has long been overlooked in data collection. Recent studies that have critically examined this issue are often situated in the Western context, and solely document differences across age, gender, or racial groups. As a result, NLP research on subjectivity have overlooked the fact that individuals within demographic groups may hold diverse values, which can influence their perceptions beyond their group norms. To effectively incorporate these considerations into NLP pipelines, we need datasets with extensive parallel annotations from various social and cultural groups. In this paper we introduce the dataset dataset: a large-scale cross-cultural dataset of parallel annotations for offensive language in over 4.5K sentences annotated by a pool of over 4k annotators, balanced across gender and age, from across 21 countries, representing eight geo-cultural regions. The dataset contains annotators' moral values captured along six moral foundations: care, equality, proportionality, authority, loyalty, and purity. Our analyses reveal substantial regional variations in annotators' perceptions that are shaped by individual moral values, offering crucial insights for building pluralistic, culturally sensitive NLP models.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 33 of its 91 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Apr 2024.
Builds on
33 of 91 references.
References · 33
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 306
- 2018Large Scale Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Twitter Abusive Behaviorcited by 265
- 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 258
- 2021Adversarial GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark for Robustness Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 227
- 2019Are We Modeling the Task or the Annotator? An Investigation of Annotator Bias in Natural Language Understanding Datasetscited by 173
- 2021MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document contextcited by 140
- 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 129
- 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 123
- 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
- 2021Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Developmentcited by 85
- 2021Agreeing to Disagree: Annotating Offensive Language Datasets with Annotators' Disagreementcited by 71
21 more
- 2020Measuring a hate speech spectrum with faceted Rasch item response theory and perspective-aware, explainable-by-design deep learningcited by 67
- 2022Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotationcited by 67
- 2021Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectivescited by 63
- 2022CrowdWorkSheets: Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Crowdsourced Dataset Annotationcited by 59
- 2021Whose Ground Truth? Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Dataset Annotationcited by 51
- 2023When Do Annotator Demographics Matter? Measuring the Influence of Annotator Demographics with the POPQUORN Datasetcited by 51
- 2023The Ecological Fallacy in Annotation: Modelling Human Label Variation goes beyond Sociodemographicscited by 45
- 2020Confronting Abusive Language Online: A Survey from the Ethical and Human Rights Perspectivecited by 43
- 2023You Are What You Annotate: Towards Better Models through Annotator Representationscited by 40
- 2021Whose Opinions Matter? Perspective-aware Models to Identify Opinions of Hate Speech Victims in Abusive Language Detectioncited by 38
- 2021Disembodied Machine Learning: On the Illusion of Objectivity in NLPcited by 37
- 2021Cross-replication Reliability -- An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Inter-rater Reliabilitycited by 30
- 2023Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Taskscited by 28
- 2021Did they answer? Subjective acts and intents in conversational discoursecited by 22
- 2019A Crowdsourced Frame Disambiguation Corpus with Ambiguitycited by 16
- 2022Can Demographic Factors Improve Text Classification? Revisiting Demographic Adaptation in the Age of Transformerscited by 10
- 2023The Reasonable Effectiveness of Diverse Evaluation Datacited by 10
- 2023Intersectionality in Conversational AI Safety: How Bayesian Multilevel Models Help Understand Diverse Perceptions of Safetycited by 8
- 2023Subjective Crowd Disagreements for Subjective Data: Uncovering Meaningful CrowdOpinion with Population-level Learningcited by 7
- 2020Neighborhood-based Pooling for Population-level Label Distribution Learningcited by 6
- 2023"Is a picture of a bird a bird": Policy recommendations for dealing with ambiguity in machine vision modelscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.
9 papers.
- 2024Culturally Aware and Adapted NLP: A Taxonomy and a Survey of the State of the Artcited by 26
- 2025The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMscited by 24
- 2025Crowdsource, Crawl, or Generate? Creating SEA-VL, a Multicultural Vision-Language Dataset for Southeast Asiacited by 8
- 2024A Framework for Evaluating LLMs Under Task Indeterminacycited by 3
- 2025Embracing Diversity: A Multi-Perspective Approach with Soft Labelscited by 3
- 2025Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Argumentscited by 2
- 2026Distributional Open-Ended Evaluation of LLM Cultural Value Alignment Based on Value Codebookcited by 1
- 2026Quantifying and Predicting Disagreement in Graded Human Ratingscited by 1
- 2026Improving Reproducibility in Evaluation through Multi-Level Annotator Modelingcited by 0
- 2026Improving Reproducibility in Evaluation through Multi-Level Annotator Modeling13 May 2026
- 2026Quantifying and Predicting Disagreement in Graded Human Ratings1 May 2026
- 2026Distributional Open-Ended Evaluation of LLM Cultural Value Alignment Based on Value Codebook16 Mar 2026
- 2025Will Annotators Disagree? Identifying Subjectivity in Value-Laden Arguments8 Sep 2025
- 2025The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs6 Jun 2025
- 2025Crowdsource, Crawl, or Generate? Creating SEA-VL, a Multicultural Vision-Language Dataset for Southeast Asia10 Mar 2025
- 2025Embracing Diversity: A Multi-Perspective Approach with Soft Labels1 Mar 2025
- 2024A Framework for Evaluating LLMs Under Task Indeterminacy21 Nov 2024
- 2024Culturally Aware and Adapted NLP: A Taxonomy and a Survey of the State of the Art6 Jun 2024