Papers › SubjECTive-QA: Measuring Subjectivity in Earnings Call Transcripts' QA Through...

SubjECTive-QA: Measuring Subjectivity in Earnings Call Transcripts' QA Through Six-Dimensional Feature Analysis

28 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.20651archive 2025-07-28

Huzaifa Pardawala, Siddhant Sukhani, Agam Shah, Veer Kejriwal, Abhishek Pillai, Rohan Bhasin, Andrew DiBiasio, Tarun Mandapati, Dhruv Adha, Sudheer Chava

Fact-checking is extensively studied in the context of misinformation and disinformation, addressing objective inaccuracies. However, a softer form of misinformation involves responses that are factually correct but lack certain features such as clarity and relevance. This challenge is prevalent in formal Question-Answer (QA) settings such as press conferences in finance, politics, sports, and other domains, where subjective answers can obscure transparency. Despite this, there is a lack of manually annotated datasets for subjective features across multiple dimensions. To address this gap, we introduce SubjECTive-QA, a human annotated dataset on Earnings Call Transcripts' (ECTs) QA sessions as the answers given by company representatives are often open to subjective interpretations and scrutiny. The dataset includes 49,446 annotations for long-form QA pairs across six features: Assertive, Cautious, Optimistic, Specific, Clear, and Relevant. These features are carefully selected to encompass the key attributes that reflect the tone of the answers provided during QA sessions across different domain. Our findings are that the best-performing Pre-trained Language Model (PLM), RoBERTa-base, has similar weighted F1 scores to Llama-3-70b-Chat on features with lower subjectivity, such as Relevant and Clear, with a mean difference of 2.17% in their weighted F1 scores. The models perform significantly better on features with higher subjectivity, such as Specific and Assertive, with a mean difference of 10.01% in their weighted F1 scores. Furthermore, testing SubjECTive-QA's generalizability using QAs from White House Press Briefings and Gaggles yields an average weighted F1 score of 65.97% using our best models for each feature, demonstrating broader applicability beyond the financial domain. SubjECTive-QA is publicly available under the CC BY 4.0 license

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2410.20651")

Code

Syntology Ran 3 of 5 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: official repository: 5 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

gtfintechlab/subjective-qa officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHubpytorchNOASSERTION 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

5 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

3ran · our draft was wrong
2unverified

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from gtfintechlab/SubjECTive-QA. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

extract_label gtfintechlab/SubjECTive-QA/scripts/openai_benchmarking.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted licence not identified · pointer only · 828a7266ccb957bb · report
gpt_prompt gtfintechlab/SubjECTive-QA/scripts/openai_benchmarking.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted licence not identified · pointer only · 41b5009aaedc91ee · report
prompt gtfintechlab/SubjECTive-QA/scripts/togetherai_benchmarking.py official repository ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted licence not identified · pointer only · be9349355f6a01fd · report
cleaner gtfintechlab/subjective-qa/helpers/feature_generator.py official repository unverified licence not identified · pointer only · 10cd925fd67a9e7f · report
huggify_data_subjectiveqa gtfintechlab/subjective-qa/helpers/upload_hf.py official repository unverified licence not identified · pointer only · bca27ce0a20b5af6 · report

Tasks

Fact CheckingMisinformation

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