Papers › End-to-End Annotator Bias Approximation on Crowdsourced Single-Label Sentiment Analysis

End-to-End Annotator Bias Approximation on Crowdsourced Single-Label Sentiment Analysis

3 Nov 2021ICNLSP 2021 11arXiv:2111.02326archive 2025-07-28

Gerhard Johann Hagerer, David Szabo, Andreas Koch, Maria Luisa Ripoll Dominguez, Christian Widmer, Maximilian Wich, Hannah Danner, Georg Groh

Sentiment analysis is often a crowdsourcing task prone to subjective labels given by many annotators. It is not yet fully understood how the annotation bias of each annotator can be modeled correctly with state-of-the-art methods. However, resolving annotator bias precisely and reliably is the key to understand annotators' labeling behavior and to successfully resolve corresponding individual misconceptions and wrongdoings regarding the annotation task. Our contribution is an explanation and improvement for precise neural end-to-end bias modeling and ground truth estimation, which reduces an undesired mismatch in that regard of the existing state-of-the-art. Classification experiments show that it has potential to improve accuracy in cases where each sample is annotated only by one single annotator. We provide the whole source code publicly and release an own domain-specific sentiment dataset containing 10,000 sentences discussing organic food products. These are crawled from social media and are singly labeled by 10 non-expert annotators.

PaperPDFConference PDFCode

Code

theonlyandreas/end-to-end-crowdsourcing officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

MisconceptionsSentiment Analysis

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections