Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluation

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.

Reliable evaluation of inter-annotator agreement (IAA) is important for assessing the consistency of annotation processes. While established IAA metrics such as Cohen's kappa, Fleiss' kappa, and Krippendorff's alpha are commonly applied in single-label settings, multi-label tasks require additional decisions about how full label sets, joint selections, and joint omissions should be compared. In this work, we present Multi-Label Agreement (MLA), a flexible framework for evaluating agreement in multi-label annotation tasks. MLA preserves the full binary label vectors assigned to each item and uses average pairwise Hamming agreement, thereby accounting for both joint selections and joint omissions. Its pooled-marginal form is not a mathematically independent coefficient: it is a chance-disagreement-weighted average of label-wise Fleiss/Scott-type coefficients and is closely related to Krippendorff's alpha with normalized Hamming distance. The framework supports pooled-marginal, Gwet AC1, and fixed-baseline normalizations, yields item-level, label-level, and corpus-level results, and includes a conditional minimum-agreement diagnostic. Through a worked example and Monte Carlo simulations, we show how the resulting values depend on label prevalence, the declared label inventory, and the selected model of expected agreement. We also provide a Python implementation. MLA thus offers a transparent and interpretable framework for multi-label agreement analysis without claiming that one normalization is universally preferable.

Annotator disagreement is widespread in NLP, particularly for subjective and ambiguous tasks such as toxicity detection and stance analysis. While early approaches treated disagreement as noise to be removed, recent work increasingly models it as a meaningful signal reflecting variation in interpretation and perspective. This survey provides a unified view of disagreement-aware NLP methods. We first present a domain-agnostic taxonomy of the sources of disagreement spanning data, task, and annotator factors. We then synthesize modeling approaches using a common framework defined by prediction targets and pooling structure, highlighting a shift from consensus learning toward explicitly modeling disagreement, and toward capturing structured relationships among annotators. We review evaluation metrics for both predictive performance and annotator behavior, and noting that most fairness evaluations remain descriptive rather than normative. We conclude by identifying open challenges and future directions, including integrating multiple sources of variation, developing disagreement-aware interpretability frameworks, and grappling with the practical tradeoffs of perspectivist modeling.