When the Majority is Wrong: Leveraging Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Tasks

Though majority vote among annotators is typically used for ground truth labels in natural language processing, annotator disagreement in tasks such as hate speech detection may reflect differences among group opinions, not noise. Thus, a crucial problem in hate speech detection is whether a statement is offensive to the demographic group that it targets, which may constitute a small fraction of the annotator pool. We construct a model that predicts individual annotator ratings on potentially offensive text and combines this information with the predicted target group of the text to model the opinions of target group members. We show gains across a range of metrics, including raising performance over the baseline by 22% at predicting individual annotators' ratings and 33% at predicting variance among annotators, which provides a method of measuring model uncertainty downstream. We find that annotators' ratings can be predicted using their demographic information and opinions on online content, without the need to track identifying annotator IDs that link each annotator to their ratings. We also find that use of non-invasive survey questions on annotators' online experiences helps to maximize privacy and minimize unnecessary collection of demographic information when predicting annotators' opinions.