@inproceedings{savinova-hoek-2024-subjectivity,
title = "Subjectivity Theory vs. Speaker Intuitions: Explaining the Results of a Subjectivity Regressor Trained on Native Speaker Judgements",
author = "Savinova, Elena and
Hoek, Jet",
editor = "De Clercq, Orph{\'e}e and
Barriere, Valentin and
Barnes, Jeremy and
Klinger, Roman and
Sedoc, Jo{\~a}o and
Tafreshi, Shabnam",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, {\&} Social Media Analysis",
month = aug,
year = "2024",
address = "Bangkok, Thailand",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.wassa-1.25",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2024.wassa-1.25",
pages = "305--315",
abstract = {In this paper, we address the issue of explainability in a transformer-based subjectivity regressor trained on native English speakers{'} judgements. The main goal of this work is to test how the regressor{'}s predictions, and therefore native speakers{'} intuitions, relate to theoretical accounts of subjectivity. We approach this goal using two methods: a top-down manual selection of theoretically defined subjectivity features and a bottom-up extraction of top subjective and objective features using the LIME explanation method. The explainability of the subjectivity regressor is evaluated on a British news dataset containing sentences taken from social media news posts and from articles on the websites of the same news outlets. Both methods provide converging evidence that theoretically defined subjectivity features, such as emoji, evaluative adjectives, exclamations, questions, intensifiers, and first person pronouns, are prominent predictors of subjectivity scores. Thus, our findings show that the predictions of the regressor, and therefore native speakers{'} perceptions of subjectivity, align with subjectivity theory. However, an additional comparison of the effects of different subjectivity features in author text and the text of cited sources reveals that the distinction between author and source subjectivity might not be as salient for na{\"\i}ve speakers as it is in the theory.},
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="savinova-hoek-2024-subjectivity">
<titleInfo>
<title>Subjectivity Theory vs. Speaker Intuitions: Explaining the Results of a Subjectivity Regressor Trained on Native Speaker Judgements</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Elena</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Savinova</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jet</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Hoek</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2024-08</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Orphée</namePart>
<namePart type="family">De Clercq</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Valentin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Barriere</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jeremy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Barnes</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Roman</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Klinger</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">João</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Sedoc</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Shabnam</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Tafreshi</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Bangkok, Thailand</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>In this paper, we address the issue of explainability in a transformer-based subjectivity regressor trained on native English speakers’ judgements. The main goal of this work is to test how the regressor’s predictions, and therefore native speakers’ intuitions, relate to theoretical accounts of subjectivity. We approach this goal using two methods: a top-down manual selection of theoretically defined subjectivity features and a bottom-up extraction of top subjective and objective features using the LIME explanation method. The explainability of the subjectivity regressor is evaluated on a British news dataset containing sentences taken from social media news posts and from articles on the websites of the same news outlets. Both methods provide converging evidence that theoretically defined subjectivity features, such as emoji, evaluative adjectives, exclamations, questions, intensifiers, and first person pronouns, are prominent predictors of subjectivity scores. Thus, our findings show that the predictions of the regressor, and therefore native speakers’ perceptions of subjectivity, align with subjectivity theory. However, an additional comparison of the effects of different subjectivity features in author text and the text of cited sources reveals that the distinction between author and source subjectivity might not be as salient for naïve speakers as it is in the theory.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">savinova-hoek-2024-subjectivity</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2024.wassa-1.25</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.wassa-1.25</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2024-08</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>305</start>
<end>315</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Subjectivity Theory vs. Speaker Intuitions: Explaining the Results of a Subjectivity Regressor Trained on Native Speaker Judgements
%A Savinova, Elena
%A Hoek, Jet
%Y De Clercq, Orphée
%Y Barriere, Valentin
%Y Barnes, Jeremy
%Y Klinger, Roman
%Y Sedoc, João
%Y Tafreshi, Shabnam
%S Proceedings of the 14th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment, & Social Media Analysis
%D 2024
%8 August
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Bangkok, Thailand
%F savinova-hoek-2024-subjectivity
%X In this paper, we address the issue of explainability in a transformer-based subjectivity regressor trained on native English speakers’ judgements. The main goal of this work is to test how the regressor’s predictions, and therefore native speakers’ intuitions, relate to theoretical accounts of subjectivity. We approach this goal using two methods: a top-down manual selection of theoretically defined subjectivity features and a bottom-up extraction of top subjective and objective features using the LIME explanation method. The explainability of the subjectivity regressor is evaluated on a British news dataset containing sentences taken from social media news posts and from articles on the websites of the same news outlets. Both methods provide converging evidence that theoretically defined subjectivity features, such as emoji, evaluative adjectives, exclamations, questions, intensifiers, and first person pronouns, are prominent predictors of subjectivity scores. Thus, our findings show that the predictions of the regressor, and therefore native speakers’ perceptions of subjectivity, align with subjectivity theory. However, an additional comparison of the effects of different subjectivity features in author text and the text of cited sources reveals that the distinction between author and source subjectivity might not be as salient for naïve speakers as it is in the theory.
%R 10.18653/v1/2024.wassa-1.25
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.wassa-1.25
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.wassa-1.25
%P 305-315
Markdown (Informal)
[Subjectivity Theory vs. Speaker Intuitions: Explaining the Results of a Subjectivity Regressor Trained on Native Speaker Judgements](https://aclanthology.org/2024.wassa-1.25) (Savinova & Hoek, WASSA-WS 2024)
ACL