DEXA: Supporting Non-Expert Annotators with Dynamic Examples from Experts
May 17, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Markus Zlabinger, Marta Sabou, Sebastian HofstΓ€tter, Mete Sertkan, Allan Hanbury
arXiv ID
2005.08367
Category
cs.IR: Information Retrieval
Citations
7
Venue
Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
The success of crowdsourcing based annotation of text corpora depends on ensuring that crowdworkers are sufficiently well-trained to perform the annotation task accurately. To that end, a frequent approach to train annotators is to provide instructions and a few example cases that demonstrate how the task should be performed (referred to as the CONTROL approach). These globally defined "task-level examples", however, (i) often only cover the common cases that are encountered during an annotation task; and (ii) require effort from crowdworkers during the annotation process to find the most relevant example for the currently annotated sample. To overcome these limitations, we propose to support workers in addition to task-level examples, also with "task-instance level" examples that are semantically similar to the currently annotated data sample (referred to as Dynamic Examples for Annotation, DEXA). Such dynamic examples can be retrieved from collections previously labeled by experts, which are usually available as gold standard dataset. We evaluate DEXA on a complex task of annotating participants, interventions, and outcomes (known as PIO) in sentences of medical studies. The dynamic examples are retrieved using BioSent2Vec, an unsupervised semantic sentence similarity method specific to the biomedical domain. Results show that (i) workers of the DEXA approach reach on average much higher agreements (Cohen's Kappa) to experts than workers of the the CONTROL approach (avg. of 0.68 to experts in DEXA vs. 0.40 in CONTROL); (ii) already three per majority voting aggregated annotations of the DEXA approach reach substantial agreements to experts of 0.78/0.75/0.69 for P/I/O (in CONTROL 0.73/0.58/0.46). Finally, (iii) we acquire explicit feedback from workers and show that in the majority of cases (avg. 72%) workers find the dynamic examples useful.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Information Retrieval
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
π
π
Old Age
Neural Graph Collaborative Filtering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Prediction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
BERT4Rec: Sequential Recommendation with Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformer
R.I.P.
π
404 Not Found
Graph Neural Networks for Social Recommendation
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Personalized Top-N Sequential Recommendation via Convolutional Sequence Embedding
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted