Who and What? Using Linguistic Features and Annotator Characteristics to Analyze Annotation Variation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Human label variation has been established as a central phenomenon in NLP: the perspectives different annotators have on the same item need to be embraced. Data collection practices thus shifted towards increasing the annotator numbers and releasing disaggregated datasets, harmful language being most resourced due to its high subjectivity. While this resulted in rich information about textitwho annotated (sociodemographics, attitudes, etc.), the textitwhat (e.g., linguistic properties of items), and their interplay has received little attention. We present the first large-scale analysis of four reference datasets for harmful language detection, bringing together annotator characteristics, linguistic properties of the items, and their interactions in a statistically informed picture. We find that interactions are crucial, revealing intersectional effects ignored in previous work, and that a strong role is played by lexical cues and annotator attitudes. Effect patterns, however, vary considerably across datasets. This urges caution about generalization and transferability.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 May 2026.
Builds on
18 of 70 references.
References · 18
- 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
- 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 264
- 2013Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexiconcited by 196
- 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 130
- 2023When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Taskscited by 90
- 2023Sensitivity, Performance, Robustness: Deconstructing the Effect of Sociodemographic Promptingcited by 81
- 2021Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectivescited by 65
- 2023Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Informationcited by 52
- 2023When Do Annotator Demographics Matter? Measuring the Influence of Annotator Demographics with the POPQUORN Datasetcited by 52
- 2017Word Affect Intensitiescited by 51
- 2023The Ecological Fallacy in Annotation: Modelling Human Label Variation goes beyond Sociodemographicscited by 46
- 2023Exploring Cross-Cultural Differences in English Hate Speech Annotations: From Dataset Construction to Analysiscited by 45
6 more
- 2017Sparsity information and regularization in the horseshoe and other shrinkage priorscited by 43
- 2023Sociodemographic Prompting is Not Yet an Effective Approach for Simulating Subjective Judgments with LLMscited by 36
- 2025Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text Perceptionscited by 33
- 2023Annotation Sensitivity: Training Data Collection Methods Affect Model Performancecited by 14
- 2018A Quality Type-aware Annotated Corpus and Lexicon for Harassment Researchcited by 11
- 2023A Taxonomy of Rater Disagreements: Surveying Challenges & Opportunities from the Perspective of Annotating Online Toxicitycited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.