Coded language is an important part of human communication. It refers to cases where users intentionally encode meaning so that the surface text differs from the intended meaning and must be decoded to be understood. Current language models handle coded language poorly. Progress has been limited by the lack of real-world datasets and clear taxonomies. This paper introduces CodedLang, a dataset of 7,744 Chinese Google Maps reviews, including 900 reviews with span-level annotations of coded language. We developed a seven-class taxonomy that captures common encoding strategies, including phonetic, orthographic, and cross-lingual substitutions. We benchmarked language models on coded language detection, classification, and review rating prediction. Results show that even strong models can fail to identify or understand coded language. Because many coded expressions rely on pronunciation-based strategies, we further conducted a phonetic analysis of coded and decoded forms. Our code and dataset are publicly available. Together, our results highlight coded language as an important and underexplored challenge for real-world NLP systems.

Subjective data annotation (SDA) plays an important role in many NLP tasks, including sentiment analysis, toxicity detection, and bias identification. Conventional SDA often treats annotator disagreement as noise, overlooking its potential to reveal deeper insights. In contrast, qualitative data analysis (QDA) explicitly engages with diverse positionalities and treats disagreement as a meaningful source of knowledge. In this position paper, we argue that human annotators are a key source of valuable interpretive insights into subjective data beyond surface-level descriptions. Through a comparative analysis of SDA and QDA methodologies, we examine similarities and differences in task nature (e.g., human’s role, analysis content, cost, and completion conditions) and practice (annotation schema, annotation workflow, annotator selection, and evaluation). Based on this comparison, we propose five practical recommendations for enabling SDA to capture richer insights. We demonstrate these recommendations in a reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) case study and envision that our interdisciplinary perspective will offer new directions for the field.

Detecting logical fallacies in texts can help users spot argument flaws, but automating this detection is not easy. Manually annotating fallacies in large-scale, real-world text data to create datasets for developing and validating detection models is costly. This paper introduces CoCoLoFa, the largest known logical fallacy dataset, containing 7,706 comments for 648 news articles, with each comment labeled for fallacy presence and type. We recruited 143 crowd workers to write comments embodying specific fallacy types (e.g., slippery slope) in response to news articles. Recognizing the complexity of this writing task, we built an LLM-powered assistant into the workers’ interface to aid in drafting and refining their comments. Experts rated the writing quality and labeling validity of CoCoLoFa as high and reliable. BERT-based models fine-tuned using CoCoLoFa achieved the highest fallacy detection (F1=0.86) and classification (F1=0.87) performance on its test set, outperforming the state-of-the-art LLMs. Our work shows that combining crowdsourcing and LLMs enables us to more effectively construct datasets for complex linguistic phenomena that crowd workers find challenging to produce on their own.

This study investigates learning with disagreement in NLP tasks and evaluates its performance on four datasets. The results suggest that the model performs best on the experimental dataset and faces challenges in minority languages. Furthermore, the analysis indicates that annotator demographics play a significant role in the interpretation of such tasks. This study suggests the need for greater consideration of demographic differences in annotators and more comprehensive evaluation metrics for NLP models.

The bridging research between Human-Computer Interaction and Natural Language Processing is developing quickly these years. However, there is still a lack of formative guidelines to understand the human-machine interaction in the NLP loop. When researchers crossing the two fields talk about humans, they may imply a user or labor. Regarding a human as a user, the human is in control, and the machine is used as a tool to achieve the human’s goals. Considering a human as a laborer, the machine is in control, and the human is used as a resource to achieve the machine’s goals. Through a systematic literature review and thematic analysis, we present an interaction framework for understanding human-machine relationships in NLP. In the framework, we propose four types of human-machine interactions: Human-Teacher and Machine-Learner, Machine-Leading, Human-Leading, and Human-Machine Collaborators. Our analysis shows that the type of interaction is not fixed but can change across tasks as the relationship between the human and the machine develops. We also discuss the implications of this framework for the future of NLP and human-machine relationships.