PreprintCited by 2Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMachine Learning and Data Classification

Annotation Sensitivity: Training Data Collection Methods Affect Model Performance

Open access
Kern, Christoph, Eckman, Stephanie, Beck, Jacob, Chew, Rob, Ma, Bolei, Kreuter, Frauke·2023·arXiv

Abstract

When training data are collected from human annotators, the design of the annotation instrument, the instructions given to annotators, the characteristics of the annotators, and their interactions can impact training data. This study demonstrates that design choices made when creating an annotation instrument also impact the models trained on the resulting annotations. We introduce the term annotation sensitivity to refer to the impact of annotation data collection methods on the annotations themselves and on downstream model performance and predictions. We collect annotations of hate speech and offensive language in five experimental conditions of an annotation instrument, randomly assigning annotators to conditions. We then fine-tune BERT models on each of the five resulting datasets and evaluate model performance on a holdout portion of each condition. We find considerable differences between the conditions for 1) the share of hate speech/offensive language annotations, 2) model performance, 3) model predictions, and 4) model learning curves. Our results emphasize the crucial role played by the annotation instrument which has received little attention in the machine learning literature. We call for additional research into how and why the instrument impacts the annotations to inform the development of best practices in instrument design.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2311.14212

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The data was split into batches of 100-200 samples to prevent annotator fatigue.

    “To maintain the quality of the annotations, we split our data into batches of 100200 samples each, to ensure our annotators do not suffer from annotation fatigue (Kern et al., 2023).”

    From The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors (2025) · cites this paper as Kern et al., 2023

    The Discussion raises annotator fatigue as a possible cause of lower-quality annotations, but says fatigue effects have not been tested. Section 3.1 reports up to 50 tweets per annotator, not batches of 100–200 samples; the cited paper therefore supports the fatigue concern, not the stated batch size or its effectiveness in preventing fatigue. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Hala Al Kuwatly, Maximilian Wich, and Georg Groh. 2020. Identifying and measuring annotator bias based on annotators' demographic characteristics. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms, pages 184-190, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Kofi Arhin, Ioana Baldini, Dennis Wei, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, and Moninder Singh. 2021. Ground-truth, whose truth? -examin- ing the challenges with annotating toxic text datasets. CoRR, abs/2112.03529. · arXiv
  3. Lora Aroyo and Chris Welty. 2015. Truth is a lie: Crowd truth and the seven myths of human annotation. AI Magazine, 36(1):15-24. · DOI
  4. Jacob Beck, Stephanie Eckman, Rob Chew, and Frauke Kreuter. 2022. Improving labeling through social sci- ence insights: Results and research agenda. In HCI International 2022 -Late Breaking Papers: Interact- ing with eXtended Reality and Artificial Intelligence, pages 245-261, Cham. Springer Nature Switzerland.
  5. Thomas Davidson, Dana Warmsley, Michael Macy, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. Automated hate speech detec- tion and the problem of offensive language. Proceed- ings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 11(1):512-515. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Emily Denton, Alex Hanna, Razvan Amironesei, An- drew Smart, and Hilary Nicole. 2021. On the genealogy of machine learning datasets: A crit- ical history of ImageNet. Big Data & Society, 8(2):205395172110359. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language under- standing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171-4186, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Stephanie Eckman and Frauke Kreuter. 2011. Confir- mation bias in housing unit listing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1):139-150. · DOI
  9. Stephanie Eckman, Frauke Kreuter, Antje Kirchner, An- nette Jäckle, Roger Tourangeau, and Stanley Presser. 2014. Assessing the mechanisms of misreporting to filter questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(3):721-733. · DOI
  10. Brian L. Egleston, Suzanne M. Miller, and Neal J. Meropol. 2011. The impact of misclassification due to survey response fatigue on estimation and identi- fiability of treatment effects. Statistics in Medicine, 30(30):3560-3572. · DOI
  11. Benoît Frénay and Michel Verleysen. 2013. Classifica- tion in the presence of label noise: a survey. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning sys- tems, 25(5):845-869.
  12. Mirta Galesic and Michael Bosnjak. 2009. Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indica- tors of Response Quality in a Web Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2):349-360. · DOI
  13. João Gama, Indrė Žliobaitė, Albert Bifet, Mykola Pech- enizkiy, and Abdelhamid Bouchachia. 2014. A sur- vey on concept drift adaptation. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 46(4):1-37.
  14. Mor Geva, Yoav Goldberg, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. Are we modeling the task or the annotator? an inves- tigation of annotator bias in natural language under- standing datasets. In Proceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1161-1166, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8):1735- 1780.
  16. Rachel Horwitz, Frauke Kreuter, and Frederick Conrad. 2017. Using mouse movements to predict web survey response difficulty. Social Science Computer Review, 35(3):388-405. · DOI
  17. Christopher K. Hsee and Jiao Zhang. 2004. Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evalu- ation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5):680-695. · DOI
  18. Frauke Kreuter, editor. 2013. Improving Surveys with Paradata, 1 edition. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. · DOI
  19. Frauke Kreuter, Susan McCulloch, Stanley Presser, and Roger Tourangeau. 2011. The Effects of Asking Fil- ter Questions in Interleafed versus Grouped Format. Sociological Methods and Research, 40(88):88-104.
  20. Jon A. Krosnick, Sowmya Narayan, and Wendy R. Smith. 1996. Satisficing in surveys: Initial evidence. New Directions for Evaluation, 1996(70):29-44. · DOI
  21. John P. Lalor, Hao Wu, Tsendsuren Munkhdalai, and Hong Yu. 2018. Understanding deep learning perfor- mance through an examination of test set difficulty: A psychometric case study. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4711-4716, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  22. Sunghee Lee, Mengyao Hu, Mingnan Liu, and Jennifer Kelley. 2020. Quantitative evaluation of response scale translation through a randomized experiment of interview language with bilingual english-and spanish-speaking latino respondents. In The Essen- tial Role of Language in Survey Research. RTI Press. · DOI
  23. Curtis Northcutt, Lu Jiang, and Isaac Chuang. 2021. Confident learning: Estimating uncertainty in dataset labels. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 70:1373-1411.
  24. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Te- jani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems 32, pages 8024-8035.
  25. Curran Associates, Inc. Amandalynne Paullada, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Emily M. Bender, Emily Denton, and Alex Hanna. 2021. Data and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research. Patterns, 2(11):100336. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Rainer Schnell and Frauke Kreuter. 2005. Separating interviewer and sampling-point effects. Journal of Official Statistics, 21(3):389-410.
  27. Swabha Swayamdipta, Roy Schwartz, Nicholas Lourie, Yizhong Wang, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. Dataset cartography: Mapping and diagnosing datasets with training dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9275-9293, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  28. Gerard J. Tellis and Deepa Chandrasekaran. 2010. Ex- tent and impact of response biases in cross-national survey research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4):329-341. · DOI
  29. Roger Tourangeau, Frauke Kreuter, and Stephanie Eck- man. 2012. Motivated underreporting in screening interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3):453- 469. · DOI
  30. Roger Tourangeau, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth A. Rasin- ski. 2000. The psychology of survey response, 10. print edition. Cambridge University Press and Cam- bridge Univ. Press.
  31. Bertie Vidgen, Scott Hale, Ella Guest, Helen Mar- getts, David Broniatowski, Zeerak Waseem, Austin Botelho, Matthew Hall, and Rebekah Tromble. 2020. Detecting East Asian prejudice on social media. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms, pages 162-172, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  32. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtow- icz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Daochen Zha, Zaid Pervaiz Bhat, Kwei-Herng Lai, Fan Yang, Zhimeng Jiang, Shaochen Zhong, and Xia Hu. 2023. Data-centric artificial intelligence: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10158. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kern, C., Eckman, S., Beck, J., Chew, R., Ma, B., & Kreuter, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • RTI International (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389072614
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
RTI International
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
training data collection, human annotators, hate speech detection, offensive language detection, BERT fine-tuning, model performance, learning curve, annotation bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review