Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userEmotion Ratings: How Intensity, Annotation Confidence and Agreements are Entangled
تقييمات العاطفة: كيف شدة وثقة التوضيحية والاتفاقيات المتشابكة
348
0 0
0.0
(
0
)
Created by
Shamra Editor
Ask ChatGPT about the research
عندما يحكم البشر على المحتوى العاطفي للنصوص، فإنها تقوم أيضا بتقييم صحة هذا الحكم أيضا ضمنيا، وهذا هو ثقتهم. نحن نفترض أن ثقة الناس (في) الذين أدوا جيدا في مهمة شرح يؤدي إلى اتفاقيات (ديس) بين بعضها البعض. إذا كان هذا صحيحا، فقد تعمل الثقة كأداة تشخيصية للفروق المنهجية في التعليقات التوضيحية. لتحقيق افتراضنا، نقوم بإجراء دراسة فرعية من جمعية اللغة الإنجليزية الأمريكية المعاصرة، والتي نطلب فيها أن نلتزم بالتمييز الجمل المحايدة من المشاعر، مع تسجيل ثقة إجاباتهم. تبين الثقة لتقريب الخلافات المعتارية. علاوة على ذلك، نجد أن الثقة مرتبطة بشدة العاطفة: إدراك التأثير الأقوى في النص يطالب المعلقون إلى مزيد من عروض التصنيف أكثر. هذه البصيرة ذات صلة بدراسات النمذجة من شدة الشدة، حيث تفتح السؤال الريادة أو المصنفين التلقائيين في الواقع تنبأوا بشدة، أو ثقة الإنسان المتصورة بالأحرى.
When humans judge the affective content of texts, they also implicitly assess the correctness of such judgment, that is, their confidence. We hypothesize that people's (in)confidence that they performed well in an annotation task leads to (dis)agreements among each other. If this is true, confidence may serve as a diagnostic tool for systematic differences in annotations. To probe our assumption, we conduct a study on a subset of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, in which we ask raters to distinguish neutral sentences from emotion-bearing ones, while scoring the confidence of their answers. Confidence turns out to approximate inter-annotator disagreements. Further, we find that confidence is correlated to emotion intensity: perceiving stronger affect in text prompts annotators to more certain classification performances. This insight is relevant for modelling studies of intensity, as it opens the question wether automatic regressors or classifiers actually predict intensity, or rather human's self-perceived confidence.
References used
https://aclanthology.org/
rate research
Read More
Appraisal theories explain how the cognitive evaluation of an event leads to a particular emotion. In contrast to theories of basic emotions or affect (valence/arousal), this theory has not received a lot of attention in natural language processing.
Yet, in psychology it has been proven powerful: Smith and Ellsworth (1985) showed that the appraisal dimensions attention, certainty, anticipated effort, pleasantness, responsibility/control and situational control discriminate between (at least) 15 emotion classes. We study different annotation strategies for these dimensions, based on the event-focused enISEAR corpus (Troiano et al., 2019). We analyze two manual annotation settings: (1) showing the text to annotate while masking the experienced emotion label; (2) revealing the emotion associated with the text. Setting 2 enables the annotators to develop a more realistic intuition of the described event, while Setting 1 is a more standard annotation procedure, purely relying on text. We evaluate these strategies in two ways: by measuring inter-annotator agreement and by fine- tuning RoBERTa to predict appraisal variables. Our results show that knowledge of the emotion increases annotators' reliability. Further, we evaluate a purely automatic rule-based labeling strategy (inferring appraisal from annotated emotion classes). Training on automatically assigned labels leads to a competitive performance of our classifier, even when tested on manual annotations. This is an indicator that it might be possible to automatically create appraisal corpora for every domain for which emotion corpora already exist.
We present a model to predict fine-grained emotions along the continuous dimensions of valence, arousal, and dominance (VAD) with a corpus with categorical emotion annotations. Our model is trained by minimizing the EMD (Earth Mover's Distance) loss
between the predicted VAD score distribution and the categorical emotion distributions sorted along VAD, and it can simultaneously classify the emotion categories and predict the VAD scores for a given sentence. We use pre-trained RoBERTa-Large and fine-tune on three different corpora with categorical labels and evaluate on EmoBank corpus with VAD scores. We show that our approach reaches comparable performance to that of the state-of-the-art classifiers in categorical emotion classification and shows significant positive correlations with the ground truth VAD scores. Also, further training with supervision of VAD labels leads to improved performance especially when dataset is small. We also present examples of predictions of appropriate emotion words that are not part of the original annotations.
Natural conversations are filled with disfluencies. This study investigates if and how BERT understands disfluency with three experiments: (1) a behavioural study using a downstream task, (2) an analysis of sentence embeddings and (3) an analysis of
the attention mechanism on disfluency. The behavioural study shows that without fine-tuning on disfluent data, BERT does not suffer significant performance loss when presented disfluent compared to fluent inputs (exp1). Analysis on sentence embeddings of disfluent and fluent sentence pairs reveals that the deeper the layer, the more similar their representation (exp2). This indicates that deep layers of BERT become relatively invariant to disfluency. We pinpoint attention as a potential mechanism that could explain this phenomenon (exp3). Overall, the study suggests that BERT has knowledge of disfluency structure. We emphasise the potential of using BERT to understand natural utterances without disfluency removal.
In view of the weak economic position of the shipper vis-à-vis the carrier and his inability to discuss the terms of the maritime transport contract and what resulted from the principle of freedom of contract from severe damage to shippers, insurance companies, banks and consignees, the general rules of liability have become invalid to regulate the responsibility of the carrier.
Open-domain chatbots are supposed to converse freely with humans without being restricted to a topic, task or domain. However, the boundaries and/or contents of open-domain conversations are not clear. To clarify the boundaries of openness'', we cond
uct two studies: First, we classify the types of speech events'' encountered in a chatbot evaluation data set (i.e., Meena by Google) and find that these conversations mainly cover the small talk'' category and exclude the other speech event categories encountered in real life human-human communication. Second, we conduct a small-scale pilot study to generate online conversations covering a wider range of speech event categories between two humans vs. a human and a state-of-the-art chatbot (i.e., Blender by Facebook). A human evaluation of these generated conversations indicates a preference for human-human conversations, since the human-chatbot conversations lack coherence in most speech event categories. Based on these results, we suggest (a) using the term small talk'' instead of open-domain'' for the current chatbots which are not that open'' in terms of conversational abilities yet, and (b) revising the evaluation methods to test the chatbot conversations against other speech events.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
