@inproceedings{lindahl-2022-machines,
title = "Do machines dream of artificial agreement?",
author = "Lindahl, Anna",
editor = "Bunt, Harry",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022",
month = jun,
year = "2022",
address = "Marseille, France",
publisher = "European Language Resources Association",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.9",
pages = "71--75",
abstract = "In this paper the (assumed) inconsistency between F1-scores and annotator agreement measures is discussed. This is exemplified in five corpora from the field of argumentation mining. High agreement is important in most annotation tasks and also often deemed important for an annotated dataset to be useful for machine learning. However, depending on the annotation task, achieving high agreement is not always easy. This is especially true in the field of argumentation mining, because argumentation can be complex as well as implicit. There are also many different models of argumentation, which can be seen in the increasing number of argumentation annotated corpora. Many of these reach moderate agreement but are still used in machine learning tasks, reaching high F1-score. In this paper we describe five corpora, in particular how they have been created and used, to see how they have handled disagreement. We find that agreement can be raised post-production, but that more discussion regarding evaluating and calculating agreement is needed. We conclude that standardisation of the models and the evaluation methods could help such discussions.",
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="lindahl-2022-machines">
<titleInfo>
<title>Do machines dream of artificial agreement?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Anna</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lindahl</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2022-06</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Harry</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bunt</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>European Language Resources Association</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Marseille, France</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>In this paper the (assumed) inconsistency between F1-scores and annotator agreement measures is discussed. This is exemplified in five corpora from the field of argumentation mining. High agreement is important in most annotation tasks and also often deemed important for an annotated dataset to be useful for machine learning. However, depending on the annotation task, achieving high agreement is not always easy. This is especially true in the field of argumentation mining, because argumentation can be complex as well as implicit. There are also many different models of argumentation, which can be seen in the increasing number of argumentation annotated corpora. Many of these reach moderate agreement but are still used in machine learning tasks, reaching high F1-score. In this paper we describe five corpora, in particular how they have been created and used, to see how they have handled disagreement. We find that agreement can be raised post-production, but that more discussion regarding evaluating and calculating agreement is needed. We conclude that standardisation of the models and the evaluation methods could help such discussions.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">lindahl-2022-machines</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.9</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2022-06</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>71</start>
<end>75</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Do machines dream of artificial agreement?
%A Lindahl, Anna
%Y Bunt, Harry
%S Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022
%D 2022
%8 June
%I European Language Resources Association
%C Marseille, France
%F lindahl-2022-machines
%X In this paper the (assumed) inconsistency between F1-scores and annotator agreement measures is discussed. This is exemplified in five corpora from the field of argumentation mining. High agreement is important in most annotation tasks and also often deemed important for an annotated dataset to be useful for machine learning. However, depending on the annotation task, achieving high agreement is not always easy. This is especially true in the field of argumentation mining, because argumentation can be complex as well as implicit. There are also many different models of argumentation, which can be seen in the increasing number of argumentation annotated corpora. Many of these reach moderate agreement but are still used in machine learning tasks, reaching high F1-score. In this paper we describe five corpora, in particular how they have been created and used, to see how they have handled disagreement. We find that agreement can be raised post-production, but that more discussion regarding evaluating and calculating agreement is needed. We conclude that standardisation of the models and the evaluation methods could help such discussions.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.9
%P 71-75
Markdown (Informal)
[Do machines dream of artificial agreement?](https://aclanthology.org/2022.isa-1.9) (Lindahl, ISA 2022)
ACL
- Anna Lindahl. 2022. Do machines dream of artificial agreement?. In Proceedings of the 18th Joint ACL - ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation within LREC2022, pages 71–75, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association.