Not All Subjectivity Is the Same! Defining Desiderata for the Evaluation of Subjectivity in NLP

Subjective NLP datasets typically aggregate annotator judgments into a single gold label, making it difficult to diagnose whether disagreement reflects unclear criteria, collapsed distinctions, or legitimate plurality. We propose a \emph{schema-level diagnostic} for auditing expert-designed annotation schemas \emph{prior to} gold-label commitment, using only multi-annotator criterion judgments. The diagnostic separates two failure modes: unstable criteria with hard-to-operationalize boundaries, and systematic overlap that blurs the boundaries between mutually exclusive categories. Applied to persuasive value extraction in commercial documents, we find that disagreement is not diffuse: instability concentrates in a few criteria, while nearly half of covered sentences activate multiple categories. These signals align with where domain experts disagree, yielding an evidence-based audit for tightening guidelines, revising category structure, or reconsidering the annotation paradigm.

Subjective NLP tasks often exhibit systematic annotator disagreement, requiring models that represent uncertainty rather than collapse it. We introduce Ensemble Diversity Optimization (EDO), a prediction-space framework that jointly optimizes ensemble weights, effective cardinality, and calibration through a unified differentiable objective. EDO learns ensemble composition and size end-to-end via Gumbel-Softmax relaxation and incorporates a signed diversity regularizer, tuned on validation data, to steer optimization toward either preserving or suppressing disagreement. This regularization prevents ensemble collapse and enables controlled navigation of the utility-calibration trade-off. The framework integrates a soft F1 surrogate, class-weighted cross-entropy to address imbalance, and reliability-weighted diversity to regulate intra-ensemble variability. Experiments on four subjective text-classification benchmarks (ArMIS, ConvAbuse, HS-Brexit, MD-Agreement) show that EDO substantially improves probabilistic calibration, reducing cross-entropy (40-78% depending on baseline) and lowering Brier scores relative to Soft-CE, Soft-MD, Top-5 Voting, and WEL, while maintaining competitive F1 and better alignment with annotator distributions. These results demonstrate that jointly optimizing ensemble structure with a signed diversity regularizer provides an efficient, model-agnostic approach for modeling human subjectivity in supervised learning.

Disagreement in annotation is a common phenomenon in the development of NLP datasets and serves as a valuable source of insight. While majority voting remains the dominant strategy for aggregating labels, recent work has explored modeling individual annotators to preserve their perspectives. However, modeling each annotator is resource-intensive and remains underexplored across various NLP tasks. We propose an agreement-based clustering technique to model the disagreement between the annotators. We conduct comprehensive experiments in 40 datasets in 18 typologically diverse languages, covering three subjective NLP tasks: sentiment analysis, emotion classification, and hate speech detection. We evaluate four aggregation approaches: majority vote, ensemble, multi-label, and multitask. The results demonstrate that agreement-based clustering can leverage the full spectrum of annotator perspectives and significantly enhance classification performance in subjective NLP tasks compared to majority voting and individual annotator modeling. Regarding the aggregation approach, the multi-label and multitask approaches are better for modeling clustered annotators than an ensemble and model majority vote.