Data quality is crucial for training accurate, unbiased, and trustworthy machine learning models as well as for their correct evaluation. Recent work, however, has shown that even popular datasets used to train and evaluate state-of-the-art models contain a non-negligible amount of erroneous annotations, biases, or artifacts. While practices and guidelines regarding dataset creation projects exist, to our knowledge, large-scale analysis has yet to be performed on how quality management is conducted when creating natural language datasets and whether these recommendations are followed. Therefore, we first survey and summarize recommended quality management practices for dataset creation as described in the literature and provide suggestions for applying them. Then, we compile a corpus of 591 scientific publications introducing text datasets and annotate it for quality-related aspects, such as annotator management, agreement, adjudication, or data validation. Using these annotations, we then analyze how quality management is conducted in practice. A majority of the annotated publications apply good or excellent quality management. However, we deem the effort of 30% of the studies as only subpar. Our analysis also shows common errors, especially when using inter-annotator agreement and computing annotation error rates.

Annotated data is an essential ingredient in natural language processing for training and evaluating machine learning models. It is therefore very desirable for the annotations to be of high quality. Recent work, however, has shown that several popular datasets contain a surprising number of annotation errors or inconsistencies. To alleviate this issue, many methods for annotation error detection have been devised over the years. While researchers show that their approaches work well on their newly introduced datasets, they rarely compare their methods to previous work or on the same datasets. This raises strong concerns on methods’ general performance and makes it difficult to assess their strengths and weaknesses. We therefore reimplement 18 methods for detecting potential annotation errors and evaluate them on 9 English datasets for text classification as well as token and span labeling. In addition, we define a uniform evaluation setup including a new formalization of the annotation error detection task, evaluation protocol, and general best practices. To facilitate future research and reproducibility, we release our datasets and implementations in an easy-to-use and open source software package. 1

The authors of this work (“Annotation Curricula to Implicitly Train Non-Expert Annotators” by Ji-Ung Lee, Jan-Christoph Klie, and Iryna Gurevych in Computational Linguistics 48:2 https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00436 ) discovered an incorrect inequality symbol in section 5.3 (page 360). The paper stated that the differences in the annotation times for the control instances result in a p-value of 0.200 which is smaller than 0.05 ( p = 0.200 < 0.05). As 0.200 is of course larger than 0.05, the correct inequality symbol is p = 0.200 > 0.05, which is in line with the conclusion that follows in the text. The paper has been updated accordingly.

Annotation studies often require annotators to familiarize themselves with the task, its annotation scheme, and the data domain. This can be overwhelming in the beginning, mentally taxing, and induce errors into the resulting annotations; especially in citizen science or crowdsourcing scenarios where domain expertise is not required. To alleviate these issues, this work proposes annotation curricula, a novel approach to implicitly train annotators. The goal is to gradually introduce annotators into the task by ordering instances to be annotated according to a learning curriculum. To do so, this work formalizes annotation curricula for sentence- and paragraph-level annotation tasks, defines an ordering strategy, and identifies well-performing heuristics and interactively trained models on three existing English datasets. Finally, we provide a proof of concept for annotation curricula in a carefully designed user study with 40 voluntary participants who are asked to identify the most fitting misconception for English tweets about the Covid-19 pandemic. The results indicate that using a simple heuristic to order instances can already significantly reduce the total annotation time while preserving a high annotation quality. Annotation curricula thus can be a promising research direction to improve data collection. To facilitate future research—for instance, to adapt annotation curricula to specific tasks and expert annotation scenarios—all code and data from the user study consisting of 2,400 annotations is made available. 1