Modeling Subjective Affect Annotations with Multi-Task Learning

Abstract

In supervised learning, the generalization capabilities of trained models are based on the available annotations. Usually, multiple annotators are asked to annotate the dataset samples and, then, the common practice is to aggregate the different annotations by computing average scores or majority voting, and train and test models on these aggregated annotations. However, this practice is not suitable for all types of problems, especially when the subjective information of each annotator matters for the task modeling. For example, emotions experienced while watching a video or evoked by other sources of content, such as news headlines, are subjective: different individuals might perceive or experience different emotions. The aggregated annotations in emotion modeling may lose the subjective information and actually represent an annotation bias. In this paper, we highlight the weaknesses of models that are trained on aggregated annotations for modeling tasks related to affect. More concretely, we compare two generic Deep Learning architectures: a Single-Task (ST) architecture and a Multi-Task (MT) architecture. While the ST architecture models single emotional perception each time, the MT architecture jointly models every single annotation and the aggregated annotations at once. Our results show that the MT approach can more accurately model every single annotation and the aggregated annotations when compared to methods that are directly trained on the aggregated annotations. Furthermore, the MT approach achieves state-of-the-art results on the COGNIMUSE, IEMOCAP, and SemEval_2007 benchmarks.

Pseudo-Labeling With Large Language Models for Multi-Label Emotion Classification of French Tweets

“…the challenge of annotation aggregation. The inter-annotator agreement, which quantifies the level of consensus among annotators for a given dataset, is frequently observed to be low [7], [8]. Consequently, it is imperative to employ a suitable approach to aggregate annotations from multiple annotators, considering the specific requirements of the problem under consideration.…”