The quality is a crucial issue for crowd annotations. Answer aggregation is an important type of solution. The aggregated answers estimated from multiple crowd answers to the same instance are the eventually collected annotations, rather than the individual crowd answers themselves. Recently, the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) on data annotation tasks has attracted interest from researchers. Most of the existing studies mainly focus on the average performance of individual crowd workers; several recent works studied the scenarios of aggregation on categorical labels and LLMs used as label creators. However, the scenario of aggregation on text answers and the role of LLMs as aggregators are not yet well-studied. In this paper, we investigate the capability of LLMs as aggregators in the scenario of close-ended crowd text answer aggregation. We propose a human-LLM hybrid text answer aggregation method with a Creator-Aggregator Multi-Stage (CAMS) crowdsourcing framework. We make the experiments based on public crowdsourcing datasets. The results show the effectiveness of our approach based on the collaboration of crowd workers and LLMs.

Question answering (QA) tasks have been extensively studied in the field of natural language processing (NLP). Answers to open-ended questions are highly diverse and difficult to quantify, and cannot be simply evaluated as correct or incorrect, unlike close-ended questions with definitive answers. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities across various tasks, they exhibit relatively weaker performance in evaluating answers to open-ended questions. In this study, we propose a method that leverages LLMs and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to assess answers to open-ended questions. We utilized LLMs to generate multiple evaluation criteria for a question. Subsequently, answers were subjected to pairwise comparisons under each criterion with LLMs, and scores for each answer were calculated in the AHP. We conducted experiments on four datasets using both ChatGPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4. Our results indicate that our approach more closely aligns with human judgment compared to the four baselines. Additionally, we explored the impact of the number of criteria, variations in models, and differences in datasets on the results.

Intransitivity is a critical issue in pairwise preference modeling. It refers to the intransitive pairwise preferences between a group of players or objects that potentially form a cyclic preference chain and has been long discussed in social choice theory in the context of the dominance relationship. However, such multifaceted intransitivity between players and the corresponding player representations in high dimensions is difficult to capture. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic model that jointly learns each player's d-dimensional representation (d>1) and a dataset-specific metric space that systematically captures the distance metric in Rd over the embedding space. Interestingly, by imposing additional constraints in the metric space, our proposed model degenerates to former models used in intransitive representation learning. Moreover, we present an extensive quantitative investigation of the vast existence of intransitive relationships between objects in various real-world benchmark datasets. To our knowledge, this investigation is the first of this type. The predictive performance of our proposed method on different real-world datasets, including social choice, election, and online game datasets, shows that our proposed method outperforms several competing methods in terms of prediction accuracy.

Deep learning models have performed well on many NLP tasks. However, their internal mechanisms are typically difficult for humans to understand. The development of methods to explain models has become a key issue in the reliability of deep learning models in many important applications. Various saliency explanation methods, which give each feature of input a score proportional to the contribution of output, have been proposed to determine the part of the input which a model values most. Despite a considerable body of work on the evaluation of saliency methods, whether the results of various evaluation metrics agree with human cognition remains an open question. In this study, we propose a new human-based method to evaluate saliency methods in NLP by crowdsourcing. We recruited 800 crowd workers and empirically evaluated seven saliency methods on two datasets with the proposed method. We analyzed the performance of saliency methods, compared our results with existing automated evaluation methods, and identified notable differences between NLP and computer vision (CV) fields when using saliency methods. The instance-level data of our crowdsourced experiments and the code to reproduce the explanations are available at https://github.com/xtlu/lreccoling_evaluation.

Aspect-category-based sentiment analysis (ACSA), which aims to identify aspect categories and predict their sentiments has been intensively studied due to its wide range of NLP applications. Most approaches mainly utilize intrasentential features. However, a review often includes multiple different aspect categories, and some of them do not explicitly appear in the review. Even in a sentence, there is more than one aspect category with its sentiments, and they are entangled intra-sentence, which makes the model fail to discriminately preserve all sentiment characteristics. In this paper, we propose an enhanced coherence-aware network with hierarchical disentanglement (ECAN) for ACSA tasks. Specifically, we explore coherence modeling to capture the contexts across the whole review and to help the implicit aspect and sentiment identification. To address the issue of multiple aspect categories and sentiment entanglement, we propose a hierarchical disentanglement module to extract distinct categories and sentiment features. Extensive experimental and visualization results show that our ECAN effectively decouples multiple categories and sentiments entangled in the coherence representations and achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance. Our codes and data are available online: \url{https://github.com/cuijin-23/ECAN}.

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can outperform crowdsourcing on the data annotation task is attracting interest recently. Some works verified this issue with the average performance of individual crowd workers and LLM workers on some specific NLP tasks by collecting new datasets. However, on the one hand, existing datasets for the studies of annotation quality in crowdsourcing are not yet utilized in such evaluations, which potentially provide reliable evaluations from a different viewpoint. On the other hand, the quality of these aggregated labels is crucial because, when utilizing crowdsourcing, the estimated labels aggregated from multiple crowd labels to the same instances are the eventually collected labels. Therefore, in this paper, we first investigate which existing crowdsourcing datasets can be used for a comparative study and create a benchmark. We then compare the quality between individual crowd labels and LLM labels and make the evaluations on the aggregated labels. In addition, we propose a Crowd-LLM hybrid label aggregation method and verify the performance. We find that adding LLM labels from good LLMs to existing crowdsourcing datasets can enhance the quality of the aggregated labels of the datasets, which is also higher than the quality of LLM labels themselves.

Given a set of ideas collected from crowds with regard to an open-ended question, how can we organize and prioritize them in order to determine the preferred ones based on preference comparisons by crowd evaluators? As there are diverse latent criteria for the value of an idea, multiple ideas can be considered as "the best". In addition, evaluators can have different preference criteria, and their comparison results often disagree. In this paper, we propose an analysis method for obtaining a subset of ideas, which we call frontier ideas, that are the best in terms of at least one latent evaluation criterion. We propose an approach, called CrowDEA, which estimates the embeddings of the ideas in the multiple-criteria preference space, the best viewpoint for each idea, and preference criterion for each evaluator, to obtain a set of frontier ideas. Experimental results using real datasets containing numerous ideas or designs demonstrate that the proposed approach can effectively prioritize ideas from multiple viewpoints, thereby detecting frontier ideas. The embeddings of ideas learned by the proposed approach provide a visualization that facilitates observation of the frontier ideas. In addition, the proposed approach prioritizes ideas from a wider variety of viewpoints, whereas the baselines tend to use to the same viewpoints; it can also handle various viewpoints and prioritize ideas in situations where only a limited number of evaluators or labels are available.