arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2103.01667cs.CL
收藏

情绪评级:强度,注释信心和协议如何纠缠在一起

Emotion Ratings: How Intensity, Annotation Confidence and Agreements are Entangled

Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung(机器语言研究所);University of Stuttgart(斯图加特大学)

Enrica Troiano, Sebastian Padó, Roman Klinger

摘要:

当人类判断文本的情感内容时,他们也隐含地评估这种判断的正确性,即他们的信心。我们假设人们对自己在注释任务中表现良好的自信会导致彼此之间的(不)一致。如果这是真的,置信度可以作为注释中系统差异的诊断工具。为了验证我们的假设,我们对当代美国英语语料库的一个子集进行了研究,在这个语料库中,我们要求评分员区分中性句子和情感句子,同时对他们的答案的置信度进行评分。信心结果近似于注释者之间的分歧。此外,我们发现,信心是相关的情感强度:感知更强的影响文本提示注释更确定的分类性能。这一见解与强度的建模研究有关,因为它提出了一个问题,即自动回归器或分类器是否真的能预测强度,或者更确切地说,是人类自我感知的信心。

英文摘要:

When humans judge the affective content of texts, they also implicitly assess the correctness of such judgment, that is, their confidence. We hypothesize that people's (in)confidence that they performed well in an annotation task leads to (dis)agreements among each other. If this is true, confidence may serve as a diagnostic tool for systematic differences in annotations. To probe our assumption, we conduct a study on a subset of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, in which we ask raters to distinguish neutral sentences from emotion-bearing ones, while scoring the confidence of their answers. Confidence turns out to approximate inter-annotator disagreements. Further, we find that confidence is correlated to emotion intensity: perceiving stronger affect in text prompts annotators to more certain classification performances. This insight is relevant for modelling studies of intensity, as it opens the question wether automatic regressors or classifiers actually predict intensity, or rather human's self-perceived confidence.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑