Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a statistical framework that decomposes human labeling outcomes into instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment, moving beyond the common assumption that all disagreement is simply noise. The framework extends measurement-error models to incorporate both shared and individualized notions of truth, allowing for a diagnostic assessment of which regime best characterizes a task. Applied to a natural language inference dataset, the framework reveals empirical evidence for all four theorized components, demonstrating its effectiveness in understanding the nuances of human labeling.
Human label variation isn't just noise; it's a signal revealing instance difficulty, annotator bias, and more, all of which can now be disentangled.
Supervised machine learning assumes that labeled data provide accurate measurements of the concepts models are meant to learn. Yet in practice, human labeling introduces systematic variation arising from ambiguous items, divergent interpretations, and simple mistakes. Machine learning research commonly treats all disagreement as noise, which obscures these distinctions and limits our understanding of what models actually learn. This paper reframes annotation as a measurement process and introduces a statistical framework for decomposing labeling outcomes into interpretable sources of variation: instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment. The framework extends classical measurement-error models to accommodate both shared and individualized notions of truth, reflecting traditional and human label variation interpretations of error, and provides a diagnostic for assessing which regime better characterizes a given task. Applying the proposed model to a multi-annotator natural language inference dataset, we find empirical evidence for all four theorized components and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. We conclude with implications for data-centric machine learning and outline how this approach can guide the development of a more systematic science of labeling.