
Categories # Tags
Sectors 11
Agriculture, Cross-sector,
Education, Food Security,
Health, Livelihoods, Logistics,
Nutrition, Protection, Shelter,
WASH (Water, Sanitation &
Hygiene)
Pillars 1D 7
Context, COVID-19,
Displacement, Humanitarian
Access, Information &
Communication, Casualties,
Shock/Event
Subpillars 1D 33 Details in Table 8in Appendix
Pillars 2D 6
Capacities & Response,
Humanitarian Conditions,
Impact, At Risk, Priority Needs,
Priority Interventions
Subpillars 2D 18 Details in Table 9in Appendix
Table 1: Overview of humanitarian analysis frame-
work.
and disaster relief but also enables various groups
to share resources (Zhang et al.,2002). When start-
ing a response or project, humanitarian organiza-
tions create or more often use an existing analy-
sis framework, which covers the generic but also
specific needs of the work. Our data originally
contained 11 different frameworks. As there are
high similarities across frameworks, we created a
common framework, which we refer to as humani-
tarian analysis framework. This framework covers
the framework dimensions of all projects. We build
our custom set of tags by mapping the original tags
in other frameworks to ours. More specifically, our
analysis framework consists of three categories:
Sectors (11 tags), Subpillars 1D (33 tags), and Sub-
pillars 2D (18 tags). Pillars/Subpillars 1D, and
2D have a hierarchical structure, consisting of a
two-leveled tree hierarchy (Pillars to Subpillars).
The list and the number of tags present for each
category are reported in Table 1.
For each project, documents relevant to under-
standing the situation, unmet needs, and underly-
ing factors are captured and uploaded to the DEEP
platform. From these sources, entries of text are
selected and categorized into an analysis frame-
work. Humanitarian annotators are trained in spe-
cific projects to follow analytical standards and
thinking to review secondary data.
This process eventually results in annotating and
organizing the data according to the humanitarian
analysis framework. As the HUMSET dataset is
created in a real-world scenario, the distribution
of annotated entries is skewed, with 33 tags be-
ing present in less than 2% of data. Tables 10,
11, and 12 in Appendix show the detailed number
and proportions of the annotated entries in Sectors,
Subpillars 1D, and 2D, respectively. Figure 2in
Appendix reports the distribution of tags in dataset.
2.3 NLP Tasks
Entry Extraction Task.
The first step for hu-
manitarian taggers in analyzing a document is find-
ing entries containing relevant information. A piece
of text or information is considered relevant if it
meaningfully contains at least one tag present in the
given humanitarian analytical framework. Since
documents often contain a large amount of infor-
mation (Figure 1), it is extremely beneficial to au-
tomate the process of entry identification, and this
is the first task of this research. This can be seen
as an extractive summarization task i. e. selecting
a subset of passages that contain relevant informa-
tion from the given document. However, the entries
do not necessarily follow the common units of text
such as sentence and paragraph and can appear
in various lengths. In fact, only 38.8% of entries
consist of full sentences, and the rest are snippets
that are shorter or longer than sentences. This lim-
its the direct applicability of prior approaches to
extractive summarization (Liu and Lapata,2019;
Zhou et al.,2018), and makes the task particularly
challenging for NLP research.
Multi-label Entry Classification Task.
After
selecting the most relevant entries within a docu-
ment, the next step is to categorize them according
to the humanitarian analysis framework (Table 1).
An automatic suggestion on which tag to choose
from a large number of possibilities can be decisive
in speeding up the annotation process. For each
category, more than one tag can be assigned to an
entry. Hence, we can view this task as multi-label
classification.
3 Experiments and Results
To conduct a set of baseline experiments on HUM-
SET according to the mentioned tasks, we split
the data into training, validation, and test sets for
all our experiments (80%, 10%, and 10%, respec-
tively). We apply stratified splitting (Szymanski
and Kajdanowicz,2017) to maintain the same dis-
tribution of labels for each set. Implementation
details of Entry Extraction (Section 3.1) and Entry