Beyond Black-Box Labels: Interpretable Criteria for Diagnosing Subjective NLP Tasks

When annotators disagree on a label, the disagreement itself carries signal -- and the number of annotators needed to capture it depends on the evaluation metric. We fine-tune NLI models on label distributions subsampled from ChaosNLI, a dataset providing 100 independent annotator judgments per item, and identify metric-dependent saturation. In our 3-class NLI setting, entropy correlation -- whether the model identifies which items elicit disagreement -- requires N ~ 20-50 annotators to converge, while distributional match (KL divergence) saturates by N ~ 10 (87-95% of improvement across five model seeds). This finding rests on a prior observation: soft labels carry item-specific signal that label smoothing cannot replicate. Across five smoothing intensities, entropy correlation clusters at r ~ 0.45-0.49, while soft labels reach r = 0.643 (p < 0.001); per-item analysis traces this gap to smoothing's inability to distinguish ambiguous items from clear ones. The soft-label advantage replicates across two architectures (DeBERTa, RoBERTa), a non-NLI-pretrained baseline, and an exploratory cross-domain evaluation on content safety. These results suggest that annotation budgets should be informed by the target evaluation metric rather than set uniformly.

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.

Subjective judgments are part of several NLP datasets and recent work is increasingly prioritizing models whose outputs reflect this diversity of perspectives. Such responses allow us to shed light on minority voices, which are frequently marginalized or obscured by dominant perspectives. It remains a question whether our evaluation practices align with these models' objectives. This position paper proposes seven evaluation desiderata for subjectivity-sensitive models, rooted in how subjectivity is represented in NLP data and models. The desiderata are constructed in a top-down approach, keeping in mind the user-centric impact of such models. We scan the experimental setup of 60 papers and show that various aspects of subjectivity are still understudied: the distinction between ambiguous and polyphonic input, whether subjectivity is effectively expressed to the user, and a lack of interplay between different desiderata, amongst other gaps.