Language models have been shown to reproduce underlying biases existing in their training data, which is the majority perspective by default. Proposed solutions aim to capture minority perspectives by either modelling annotator disagreements or grouping annotators based on shared metadata, both of which face significant challenges. We propose a framework that trains models without encoding annotator metadata, extracts latent embeddings informed by annotator behaviour, and creates clusters of similar opinions, that we refer to as voices. Resulting clusters are validated post-hoc via internal and external quantitative metrics, as well a qualitative analysis to identify the type of voice that each cluster represents. Our results demonstrate the strong generalisation capability of our framework, indicated by resulting clusters being adequately robust, while also capturing minority perspectives based on different demographic factors throughout two distinct datasets.

Evaluating the generalisation capabilities of multimodal models based solely on their performance on out-of-distribution data fails to capture their true robustness. This work introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework that systematically examines the role of instructions and inputs in the generalisation abilities of such models, considering architectural design, input perturbations across language and vision modalities, and increased task complexity. The proposed framework uncovers the resilience of multimodal models to extreme instruction perturbations and their vulnerability to observational changes, raising concerns about overfitting to spurious correlations. By employing this evaluation framework on current Transformer-based multimodal models for robotic manipulation tasks, we uncover limitations and suggest future advancements should focus on architectural and training innovations that better integrate multimodal inputs, enhancing a model’s generalisation prowess by prioritising sensitivity to input content over incidental correlations.

Online Gender-Based Violence is an increasing problem, but existing datasets fail to capture the plurality of possible annotator perspectives or ensure representation of affected groups. In a pilot study, we revisit the annotation of a widely used dataset to investigate the relationship between annotator identities and underlying attitudes and the responses they give to a sexism labelling task. We collect demographic and attitudinal information about crowd-sourced annotators using two validated surveys from Social Psychology. While we do not find any correlation between underlying attitudes and annotation behaviour, ethnicity does appear to be related to annotator responses for this pool of crowd-workers. We also conduct initial classification experiments using Large Language Models, finding that a state-of-the-art model trained with human feedback benefits from our broad data collection to perform better on the new labels. This study represents the initial stages of a wider data collection project, in which we aim to develop a taxonomy of GBV in partnership with affected stakeholders.

Gender-Based Violence (GBV) is an increasing problem online, but existing datasets fail to capture the plurality of possible annotator perspectives or ensure the representation of affected groups. We revisit two important stages in the moderation pipeline for GBV: (1) manual data labelling; and (2) automated classification. For (1), we examine two datasets to investigate the relationship between annotator identities and attitudes and the responses they give to two GBV labelling tasks. To this end, we collect demographic and attitudinal information from crowd-sourced annotators using three validated surveys from Social Psychology. We find that higher Right Wing Authoritarianism scores are associated with a higher propensity to label text as sexist, while for Social Dominance Orientation and Neosexist Attitudes, higher scores are associated with a negative tendency to do so.For (2), we conduct classification experiments using Large Language Models and five prompting strategies, including infusing prompts with annotator information. We find: (i) annotator attitudes affect the ability of classifiers to predict their labels; (ii) including attitudinal information can boost performance when we use well-structured brief annotator descriptions; and (iii) models struggle to reflect the increased complexity and imbalanced classes of the new label sets.

There are two competing approaches for modelling annotator disagreement: distributional soft-labelling approaches (which aim to capture the level of disagreement) or modelling perspectives of individual annotators or groups thereof. We adapt a multi-task architecture which has previously shown success in modelling perspectives to evaluate its performance on the SEMEVAL Task 11. We do so by combining both approaches, i.e. predicting individual annotator perspectives as an interim step towards predicting annotator disagreement. Despite its previous success, we found that a multi-task approach performed poorly on datasets which contained distinct annotator opinions, suggesting that this approach may not always be suitable when modelling perspectives. Furthermore, our results explain that while strongly perspectivist approaches might not achieve state-of-the-art performance according to evaluation metrics used by distributional approaches, our approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of individual perspectives present in the data. We argue that perspectivist approaches are preferable because they enable decision makers to amplify minority views, and that it is important to re-evaluate metrics to reflect this goal.