Skip to main content
Cornell University
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > cs > arXiv:2410.20651

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2410.20651 (cs)
[Submitted on 28 Oct 2024 (v1), last revised 23 Jan 2025 (this version, v2)]

Title:SubjECTive-QA: Measuring Subjectivity in Earnings Call Transcripts' QA Through Six-Dimensional Feature Analysis

Authors:Huzaifa Pardawala, Siddhant Sukhani, Agam Shah, Veer Kejriwal, Abhishek Pillai, Rohan Bhasin, Andrew DiBiasio, Tarun Mandapati, Dhruv Adha, Sudheer Chava
View a PDF of the paper titled SubjECTive-QA: Measuring Subjectivity in Earnings Call Transcripts' QA Through Six-Dimensional Feature Analysis, by Huzaifa Pardawala and 9 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Fact-checking is extensively studied in the context of misinformation and disinformation, addressing objective inaccuracies. However, a softer form of misinformation involves responses that are factually correct but lack certain features such as clarity and relevance. This challenge is prevalent in formal Question-Answer (QA) settings such as press conferences in finance, politics, sports, and other domains, where subjective answers can obscure transparency. Despite this, there is a lack of manually annotated datasets for subjective features across multiple dimensions. To address this gap, we introduce SubjECTive-QA, a human annotated dataset on Earnings Call Transcripts' (ECTs) QA sessions as the answers given by company representatives are often open to subjective interpretations and scrutiny. The dataset includes 49,446 annotations for long-form QA pairs across six features: Assertive, Cautious, Optimistic, Specific, Clear, and Relevant. These features are carefully selected to encompass the key attributes that reflect the tone of the answers provided during QA sessions across different domain. Our findings are that the best-performing Pre-trained Language Model (PLM), RoBERTa-base, has similar weighted F1 scores to Llama-3-70b-Chat on features with lower subjectivity, such as Relevant and Clear, with a mean difference of 2.17% in their weighted F1 scores. The models perform significantly better on features with higher subjectivity, such as Specific and Assertive, with a mean difference of 10.01% in their weighted F1 scores. Furthermore, testing SubjECTive-QA's generalizability using QAs from White House Press Briefings and Gaggles yields an average weighted F1 score of 65.97% using our best models for each feature, demonstrating broader applicability beyond the financial domain. SubjECTive-QA is publicly available under the CC BY 4.0 license
Comments: Accepted at NeurIPS 2024
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2410.20651 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2410.20651v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.20651
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Agam Shah [view email]
[v1] Mon, 28 Oct 2024 01:17:34 UTC (3,648 KB)
[v2] Thu, 23 Jan 2025 18:56:21 UTC (3,949 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled SubjECTive-QA: Measuring Subjectivity in Earnings Call Transcripts' QA Through Six-Dimensional Feature Analysis, by Huzaifa Pardawala and 9 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2024-10
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack