VariErr NLI: Separating Annotation Error from Human Label Variation

Overview

• This paper introduces a new dataset, VariErr, that focuses on understanding the difference between human label variation and annotation errors in the context of natural language inference (NLI) tasks. • The researchers propose a two-round annotation process where annotators first assign labels and then judge the validity of the label-explanation pairs. • The paper evaluates the effectiveness of various automatic error detection (AED) methods and large language models (GPTs) in distinguishing between valid label variation and annotation errors.

Plain English Explanation

The paper explores the difference between human label variation and annotation errors in natural language processing (NLP) benchmarks. When people are asked to label the same piece of text, they may assign different labels for valid reasons, like differing interpretations. On the other hand, annotation errors occur when labels are assigned for invalid reasons.

These two issues - variation and errors - are common in NLP datasets, but past research has studied them separately. This paper aims to tease apart the error from the valid signal, especially in cases where the "right" answer is not black-and-white.

To do this, the researchers created a new dataset called VariErr, focused on the NLI (natural language inference) task in English. They had annotators not only assign labels, but also explain their reasoning. Then, a second set of annotators judged whether the labels and explanations were valid. This dataset provides a way to distinguish true label variation from annotation errors.

The paper also evaluates different AI methods, including state-of-the-art automatic error detection (AED) techniques and large language models (GPTs), to see how well they can identify errors versus valid variation. They found that the GPTs, especially the powerful GPT-4, perform better than the AED methods, but still fall short of human-level performance at this task.

Technical Explanation

The researchers introduce a new dataset called VariErr that focuses on the task of natural language inference (NLI) in English. NLI is a common benchmark in NLP where the goal is to determine the relationship (e.g., entailment, contradiction, neutral) between two input text snippets.

To create VariErr, the team re-annotated 500 items from the existing MNLI dataset. They used a two-round annotation process:

1. Annotators assigned NLI labels to the items.
2. A second set of annotators judged the validity of the label-explanation pairs provided by the initial annotators.

This process resulted in 7,732 validity judgments on 1,933 explanations, providing a dataset that can distinguish between valid label variation and annotation errors.

The researchers then evaluated the performance of various automatic error detection (AED) methods and large language models (GPTs) in identifying errors versus valid variation. They found that state-of-the-art AED methods significantly underperformed compared to the GPTs, including the powerful GPT-4. However, even GPT-4 fell short of human-level performance on this task.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge that their methodology and dataset are focused on the NLI task in English, and further work is needed to determine if the findings generalize to other NLP tasks and languages. Additionally, they note that their study did not explore the reasons behind the label variation, which could provide valuable insights.

One potential limitation is that the VariErr dataset may not fully capture the complexity of real-world NLP tasks, where the "right" answer is often more nuanced than a simple binary classification. The researchers could consider expanding the dataset to include a wider range of NLP tasks and more ambiguous cases.

Furthermore, the paper does not delve into the specific shortcomings of the AED methods or the areas where the GPTs struggle. A more detailed analysis of the error types and their sources could help researchers develop more effective techniques for distinguishing valid variation from annotation errors.

Conclusion

This paper presents a novel approach to understanding the difference between human label variation and annotation errors in NLP benchmarks. The VariErr dataset and the comparative evaluation of AED methods and GPTs provide valuable insights for the development of more trustworthy and reliable NLP systems.

The findings suggest that existing AED techniques may not be sufficient for the nuanced task of differentiating valid variation from errors, and that large language models like GPT-4 can be more effective, although still imperfect. This work lays the groundwork for future research on improving the robustness and interpretability of NLP systems by better accounting for the signal and noise in human annotations.