Vagueness and referential ambiguity in a large-scale annotated corpus

In this paper, we argue that difficulties in the definition of coreference itself contribute to lower inter-annotator agreement in certain cases. Data from a large referentially annotated corpus serves to corroborate this point, using a quantitative investigation to assess which effects or problems are likely to be the most prominent. Several examples where such problems occur are discussed in more detail, and we then propose a generalisation of Poesio, Reyle and Stevenson’s Justified Sloppiness Hypothesis to provide a unified model for these cases of disagreement and argue that a deeper understanding of the phenomena involved allows to tackle problematic cases in a more principled fashion than would be possible using only pre-theoretic intuitions

Opinion Piece: Can we Fix the Scope for Coreference? Problems and Solutions for Benchmarks beyond OntoNotes

Current work on automatic coreference resolution has focused on the OntoNotes benchmark dataset, due to both its size and consistency. However many aspects of the OntoNotes annotation scheme are not well understood by NLP practitioners, including the treatment of generic NPs, noun modifiers, indefinite anaphora, predication and more. These often lead to counterintuitive claims, results and system behaviors. This opinion piece aims to highlight some of the problems with the OntoNotes rendition of coreference, and to propose a way forward relying on three principles: 1. a focus on semantics, not morphosyntax; 2. cross-linguistic generalizability; and 3. a separation of identity and scope, which can resolve old problems involving temporal and modal domain consistency

Iarg-AnCora: Spanish corpus annotated with implicit arguments

This article presents the Spanish Iarg-AnCora corpus (400 k-words, 13,883 sentences) annotated with the implicit arguments of deverbal nominalizations (18,397 occurrences). We describe the methodology used to create it, focusing on the annotation scheme and criteria adopted. The corpus was manually annotated and an interannotator agreement test was conducted (81 % observed agreement) in order to ensure the reliability of the final resource. The annotation of implicit arguments results in an important gain in argument and thematic role coverage (128 % on average). It is the first corpus annotated with implicit arguments for the Spanish language with a wide coverage that is freely available. This corpus can subsequently be used by machine learning-based semantic role labeling systems, and for the linguistic analysis of implicit arguments grounded on real data. Semantic analyzers are essential components of current language technology applications, which need to obtain a deeper understanding of the text in order to make inferences at the highest level to obtain qualitative improvements in the results

A Crowdsourced Corpus of Multiple Judgments and Disagreement on Anaphoric Interpretation

We present a corpus of anaphoric information (coreference) crowdsourced through a game-with-a-purpose. The corpus, containing annotations for about 108,000 markables, is one of the largest corpora for coreference for English, and one of the largest crowdsourced NLP corpora, but its main feature is the large number of judgments per markable: 20 on average, and over 2.2M in total. This characteristic makes the corpus a unique resource for the study of disagreements on anaphoric interpretation. A second distinctive feature is its rich annotation scheme, covering singletons, expletives, and split-antecedent plurals. Finally, the corpus also comes with labels inferred using a recently proposed probabilistic model of annotation for coreference. The labels are of high quality and make it possible to successfully train a state of the art coreference resolver, including training on singletons and non-referring expressions. The annotation model can also result in more than one label, or no label, being proposed for a markable, thus serving as a baseline method for automatically identifying ambiguous markables. A preliminary analysis of the results is presented

Grounding event references in news

Events are frequently discussed in natural language, and their accurate identification is central to language understanding. Yet they are diverse and complex in ontology and reference; computational processing hence proves challenging. News provides a shared basis for communication by reporting events. We perform several studies into news event reference. One annotation study characterises each news report in terms of its update and topic events, but finds that topic is better consider through explicit references to background events. In this context, we propose the event linking task which—analogous to named entity linking or disambiguation—models the grounding of references to notable events. It defines the disambiguation of an event reference as a link to the archival article that first reports it. When two references are linked to the same article, they need not be references to the same event. Event linking hopes to provide an intuitive approximation to coreference, erring on the side of over-generation in contrast with the literature. The task is also distinguished in considering event references from multiple perspectives over time. We diagnostically evaluate the task by first linking references to past, newsworthy events in news and opinion pieces to an archive of the Sydney Morning Herald. The intensive annotation results in only a small corpus of 229 distinct links. However, we observe that a number of hyperlinks targeting online news correspond to event links. We thus acquire two large corpora of hyperlinks at very low cost. From these we learn weights for temporal and term overlap features in a retrieval system. These noisy data lead to significant performance gains over a bag-of-words baseline. While our initial system can accurately predict many event links, most will require deep linguistic processing for their disambiguation

An Annotated Corpus of Reference Resolution for Interpreting Common Grounding

Common grounding is the process of creating, repairing and updating mutual understandings, which is a fundamental aspect of natural language conversation. However, interpreting the process of common grounding is a challenging task, especially under continuous and partially-observable context where complex ambiguity, uncertainty, partial understandings and misunderstandings are introduced. Interpretation becomes even more challenging when we deal with dialogue systems which still have limited capability of natural language understanding and generation. To address this problem, we consider reference resolution as the central subtask of common grounding and propose a new resource to study its intermediate process. Based on a simple and general annotation schema, we collected a total of 40,172 referring expressions in 5,191 dialogues curated from an existing corpus, along with multiple judgements of referent interpretations. We show that our annotation is highly reliable, captures the complexity of common grounding through a natural degree of reasonable disagreements, and allows for more detailed and quantitative analyses of common grounding strategies. Finally, we demonstrate the advantages of our annotation for interpreting, analyzing and improving common grounding in baseline dialogue systems.Comment: 9 pages, 7 figures, 6 tables, Accepted by AAAI 202

Grounding event references in news

Events are frequently discussed in natural language, and their accurate identification is central to language understanding. Yet they are diverse and complex in ontology and reference; computational processing hence proves challenging. News provides a shared basis for communication by reporting events. We perform several studies into news event reference. One annotation study characterises each news report in terms of its update and topic events, but finds that topic is better consider through explicit references to background events. In this context, we propose the event linking task which—analogous to named entity linking or disambiguation—models the grounding of references to notable events. It defines the disambiguation of an event reference as a link to the archival article that first reports it. When two references are linked to the same article, they need not be references to the same event. Event linking hopes to provide an intuitive approximation to coreference, erring on the side of over-generation in contrast with the literature. The task is also distinguished in considering event references from multiple perspectives over time. We diagnostically evaluate the task by first linking references to past, newsworthy events in news and opinion pieces to an archive of the Sydney Morning Herald. The intensive annotation results in only a small corpus of 229 distinct links. However, we observe that a number of hyperlinks targeting online news correspond to event links. We thus acquire two large corpora of hyperlinks at very low cost. From these we learn weights for temporal and term overlap features in a retrieval system. These noisy data lead to significant performance gains over a bag-of-words baseline. While our initial system can accurately predict many event links, most will require deep linguistic processing for their disambiguation

ProppML: A Complete Annotation Scheme for Proppian Morphologies

We give a preliminary description of ProppML, an annotation scheme designed to capture all the components of a Proppian-style morphological analysis of narratives. This work represents the first fully complete annotation scheme for Proppian morphologies, going beyond previous annotation schemes such as PftML, ProppOnto, Bod et al., and our own prior work. Using ProppML we have annotated Propp\u27s morphology on fifteen tales (18,862 words) drawn from his original corpus of Russian folktales. This is a significantly larger set of data than annotated in previous studies. This pilot corpus was constructed via double annotation by two highly trained annotators, whose annotations were then combined after discussion with a third highly trained adjudicator, resulting in gold standard data which is appropriate for training machine learning algorithms. Agreement measures calculated between both annotators show very good agreement (F_1>0.75, kappa>0.9 for functions; F_1>0.6 for moves; and F_1>0.8, kappa>0.6 for dramatis personae). This is the first robust demonstration of reliable annotation of Propp\u27s system

SafeWebUH at SemEval-2023 Task 11: Learning Annotator Disagreement in Derogatory Text: Comparison of Direct Training vs Aggregation

Subjectivity and difference of opinion are key social phenomena, and it is crucial to take these into account in the annotation and detection process of derogatory textual content. In this paper, we use four datasets provided by SemEval-2023 Task 11 and fine-tune a BERT model to capture the disagreement in the annotation. We find individual annotator modeling and aggregation lowers the Cross-Entropy score by an average of 0.21, compared to the direct training on the soft labels. Our findings further demonstrate that annotator metadata contributes to the average 0.029 reduction in the Cross-Entropy score.Comment: SemEval Task 11 paper (System

Learning from disagreement: a survey

Many tasks in Natural Language Processing (nlp) and Computer Vision (cv) offer evidence that humans disagree, from objective tasks such as part-of-speech tagging to more subjective tasks such as classifying an image or deciding whether a proposition follows from certain premises. While most learning in artificial intelligence (ai) still relies on the assumption that a single (gold) interpretation exists for each item, a growing body of research aims to develop learning methods that do not rely on this assumption. In this survey, we review the evidence for disagreements on nlp and cv tasks, focusing on tasks for which substantial datasets containing this information have been created. We discuss the most popular approaches to training models from datasets containing multiple judgments potentially in disagreement. We systematically compare these different approaches by training them with each of the available datasets, considering several ways to evaluate the resulting models. Finally, we discuss the results in depth, focusing on four key research questions, and assess how the type of evaluation and the characteristics of a dataset determine the answers to these questions. Our results suggest, first of all, that even if we abandon the assumption of a gold standard, it is still essential to reach a consensus on how to evaluate models. This is because the relative performance of the various training methods is critically affected by the chosen form of evaluation. Secondly, we observed a strong dataset effect. With substantial datasets, providing many judgments by high-quality coders for each item, training directly with soft labels achieved better results than training from aggregated or even gold labels. This result holds for both hard and soft evaluation. But when the above conditions do not hold, leveraging both gold and soft labels generally achieved the best results in the hard evaluation. All datasets and models employed in this paper are freely available as supplementary materials