Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis

Introduction. Privacy policies inform users about data practices but are often complex and difficult to interpret. Human annotation plays a key role in understanding privacy policies, yet annotation disagreements highlight the complexity of these texts. Traditional machine learning models prioritiz...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tian Wang, Yuanye Ma, Catherine Blake, Masooda Bashir, Hsin-Yuan Wang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Borås 2025-03-01
Series:Information Research: An International Electronic Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://publicera.kb.se/ir/article/view/47581
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850038032534601728
author Tian Wang
Yuanye Ma
Catherine Blake
Masooda Bashir
Hsin-Yuan Wang
author_facet Tian Wang
Yuanye Ma
Catherine Blake
Masooda Bashir
Hsin-Yuan Wang
author_sort Tian Wang
collection DOAJ
description Introduction. Privacy policies inform users about data practices but are often complex and difficult to interpret. Human annotation plays a key role in understanding privacy policies, yet annotation disagreements highlight the complexity of these texts. Traditional machine learning models prioritize consensus, overlooking annotation variability and its impact on accuracy. Method. This study examines how annotation disagreements affect machine learning performance using the OPP-115 corpus. It compares majority vote and union methods with alternative strategies to assess their impact on policy classification. Analysis. The study evaluates whether increasing annotator consensus improves model effectiveness and if disagreement-aware approaches yield more reliable results. Results. Higher agreement levels improve model performance across most categories. Complete agreement yields the best F1-scores, especially for First Party Collection/Use and Third-Party Sharing/Collection. Annotation disagreements significantly impact classification outcomes, underscoring the need for understanding annotation disagreements. Conclusions. Ignoring annotation disagreements can misrepresent model accuracy. This study proposes new evaluation strategies that account for annotation variability, offering a more realistic approach to privacy policy analysis. Future work should explore the causes of annotation disagreements to improve machine learning transparency and reliability.
format Article
id doaj-art-e85b146489b84dbfa5c0f1b8f1ef5113
institution DOAJ
issn 1368-1613
language English
publishDate 2025-03-01
publisher University of Borås
record_format Article
series Information Research: An International Electronic Journal
spelling doaj-art-e85b146489b84dbfa5c0f1b8f1ef51132025-08-20T02:56:43ZengUniversity of BoråsInformation Research: An International Electronic Journal1368-16132025-03-0130iConf10.47989/ir30iConf47581Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysisTian Wang0Yuanye Ma1Catherine Blake2Masooda Bashir3Hsin-Yuan Wang4University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Illinois Discovery Partners InstituteUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Introduction. Privacy policies inform users about data practices but are often complex and difficult to interpret. Human annotation plays a key role in understanding privacy policies, yet annotation disagreements highlight the complexity of these texts. Traditional machine learning models prioritize consensus, overlooking annotation variability and its impact on accuracy. Method. This study examines how annotation disagreements affect machine learning performance using the OPP-115 corpus. It compares majority vote and union methods with alternative strategies to assess their impact on policy classification. Analysis. The study evaluates whether increasing annotator consensus improves model effectiveness and if disagreement-aware approaches yield more reliable results. Results. Higher agreement levels improve model performance across most categories. Complete agreement yields the best F1-scores, especially for First Party Collection/Use and Third-Party Sharing/Collection. Annotation disagreements significantly impact classification outcomes, underscoring the need for understanding annotation disagreements. Conclusions. Ignoring annotation disagreements can misrepresent model accuracy. This study proposes new evaluation strategies that account for annotation variability, offering a more realistic approach to privacy policy analysis. Future work should explore the causes of annotation disagreements to improve machine learning transparency and reliability. https://publicera.kb.se/ir/article/view/47581privacy policyannotator disagreementnatural language processingmachine learninghuman label variation
spellingShingle Tian Wang
Yuanye Ma
Catherine Blake
Masooda Bashir
Hsin-Yuan Wang
Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
Information Research: An International Electronic Journal
privacy policy
annotator disagreement
natural language processing
machine learning
human label variation
title Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
title_full Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
title_fullStr Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
title_full_unstemmed Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
title_short Taking disagreements into consideration: human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
title_sort taking disagreements into consideration human annotation variability in privacy policy analysis
topic privacy policy
annotator disagreement
natural language processing
machine learning
human label variation
url https://publicera.kb.se/ir/article/view/47581
work_keys_str_mv AT tianwang takingdisagreementsintoconsiderationhumanannotationvariabilityinprivacypolicyanalysis
AT yuanyema takingdisagreementsintoconsiderationhumanannotationvariabilityinprivacypolicyanalysis
AT catherineblake takingdisagreementsintoconsiderationhumanannotationvariabilityinprivacypolicyanalysis
AT masoodabashir takingdisagreementsintoconsiderationhumanannotationvariabilityinprivacypolicyanalysis
AT hsinyuanwang takingdisagreementsintoconsiderationhumanannotationvariabilityinprivacypolicyanalysis