Quality and Agreement in Multilabel Emotion Annotation: A Case Study and Evaluation Framework

Annotator disagreement in emotion classification reflects ambiguity intrinsic to emotion concepts and is essential for predictor-quality assessment in subjective NLP. Yet no prior work integrates soft-label learning with Bayesian deep learning to evaluate uncertainty along axes including annotator-distribution fidelity. We train a linear head on a frozen RoBERTa via cyclical stochastic gradient Markov chain Monte Carlo (cSG-MCMC), targeting the empirical annotator distribution with a soft-label objective under a five-axis evaluation. On the 28-emotion GoEmotions benchmark, the proposed method outperforms Monte Carlo Dropout and Deep Ensemble simultaneously on three axes -- Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD) to the annotator distribution, Spearman correlation between per-emotion aleatoric uncertainty and disagreement, and selective-prediction Area Under the Risk-Coverage Curve (AURC) and Area Under the ROC Curve (AUROC) -- showing independent axes are jointly attainable from one posterior. Post-hoc temperature scaling exhibits a bidirectional effect, establishing hard-label calibration and annotator-JSD as independent dimensions and motivating joint reporting as an honest protocol.

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.

This paper introduces a multi-label visual emotion analysis benchmark dataset for comprehensively evaluating the ability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to predict the emotions evoked by images. Recent user studies report an unintuitive finding: humans may prefer the predictions of MLLMs over the labels in existing datasets. We argue that this phenomenon stems from the suboptimal annotation scheme used in existing datasets, where each annotator is shown a single candidate emotion for each image and judges whether it is evoked or not. This approach is clearly limited because a single image can evoke multiple emotions with varying intensities. As a result, evaluations based on these datasets may underestimate the capabilities of MLLMs, yet an appropriate benchmark for evaluating such models remains lacking. To address this issue, we introduce a new multi-label benchmark dataset for visual emotion analysis toward MLLMs evaluation. We hire $20$ annotators per image and ask them to select all emotions they feel from an image. Then, we aggregate the votes across all annotators, providing a more reliable and representative dataset labeled with a distribution of emotions. The resulting dataset contains $10,344$ images with $236,998$ valid votes across eight emotions. Based on this benchmark dataset, we evaluate several recent models, including Qwen3-VL, OpenAI's GPT, Gemini, and Claude. We assess model performance on both dominant emotion prediction and emotion distribution prediction. Our results demonstrate the progress achieved by recent MLLMs while also indicating that substantial room for improvement remains. Furthermore, our experiments with LLM-as-a-judge show that the method does not consistently improve MLLMs' performance, indicating its limitations for the subjective task of visual emotion analysis.