The Extraordinary Failure of Complement Coercion Crowdsourcing

Yanai Elazar, Victoria Basmov, Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, Reut Tsarfaty
{"title":"The Extraordinary Failure of Complement Coercion Crowdsourcing","authors":"Yanai Elazar, Victoria Basmov, Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg, Reut Tsarfaty","doi":"10.18653/v1/2020.insights-1.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crowdsourcing has eased and scaled up the collection of linguistic annotation in recent years. In this work, we follow known methodologies of collecting labeled data for the complement coercion phenomenon. These are constructions with an implied action — e.g., “I started a new book I bought last week”, where the implied action is reading. We aim to collect annotated data for this phenomenon by reducing it to either of two known tasks: Explicit Completion and Natural Language Inference. However, in both cases, crowdsourcing resulted in low agreement scores, even though we followed the same methodologies as in previous work. Why does the same process fail to yield high agreement scores? We specify our modeling schemes, highlight the differences with previous work and provide some insights about the task and possible explanations for the failure. We conclude that specific phenomena require tailored solutions, not only in specialized algorithms, but also in data collection methods.","PeriodicalId":441528,"journal":{"name":"First Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP","volume":"90 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Workshop on Insights from Negative Results in NLP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.insights-1.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Crowdsourcing has eased and scaled up the collection of linguistic annotation in recent years. In this work, we follow known methodologies of collecting labeled data for the complement coercion phenomenon. These are constructions with an implied action — e.g., “I started a new book I bought last week”, where the implied action is reading. We aim to collect annotated data for this phenomenon by reducing it to either of two known tasks: Explicit Completion and Natural Language Inference. However, in both cases, crowdsourcing resulted in low agreement scores, even though we followed the same methodologies as in previous work. Why does the same process fail to yield high agreement scores? We specify our modeling schemes, highlight the differences with previous work and provide some insights about the task and possible explanations for the failure. We conclude that specific phenomena require tailored solutions, not only in specialized algorithms, but also in data collection methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
互补强制众包的巨大失败
近年来,众包简化并扩大了语言注释的收集。在这项工作中,我们遵循已知的方法来收集补语强制现象的标记数据。这些都是带有暗示动作的结构,例如,“我开始看我上周买的一本新书”,暗示动作是阅读。我们的目标是通过将其简化为两个已知任务中的任何一个来收集这种现象的注释数据:显式完成和自然语言推理。然而,在这两种情况下,众包导致了较低的协议得分,即使我们遵循了与之前工作相同的方法。为什么同样的过程不能产生高的一致性分数?我们详细说明了我们的建模方案,强调了与以前工作的不同之处,并提供了一些关于任务和失败的可能解释的见解。我们的结论是,特定的现象需要量身定制的解决方案,不仅在专门的算法上,而且在数据收集方法上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What GPT Knows About Who is Who Pathologies of Pre-trained Language Models in Few-shot Fine-tuning Can Question Rewriting Help Conversational Question Answering? Extending the Scope of Out-of-Domain: Examining QA models in multiple subdomains Do Data-based Curricula Work?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1