Can LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05534v1
• Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:30:01 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Replace Manual Annotation of Software Engineering Artifacts?
• Authors: Toufique Ahmed, Premkumar Devanbu, Christoph Treude, Michael Pradel,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have recently started to demonstrate human-level performance in several areas. This paper explores the possibility of substituting costly human subjects with much cheaper LLM queries in evaluations of code and code-related artifacts. Our results show that replacing some human annotation effort with LLMs can produce inter-rater agreements equal or close to human-rater agreement.
• Score: 24.563167762241346
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Experimental evaluations of software engineering innovations, e.g., tools and processes, often include human-subject studies as a component of a multi-pronged strategy to obtain greater generalizability of the findings. However, human-subject studies in our field are challenging, due to the cost and difficulty of finding and employing suitable subjects, ideally, professional programmers with varying degrees of experience. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) have recently started to demonstrate human-level performance in several areas. This paper explores the possibility of substituting costly human subjects with much cheaper LLM queries in evaluations of code and code-related artifacts. We study this idea by applying six state-of-the-art LLMs to ten annotation tasks from five datasets created by prior work, such as judging the accuracy of a natural language summary of a method or deciding whether a code change fixes a static analysis warning. Our results show that replacing some human annotation effort with LLMs can produce inter-rater agreements equal or close to human-rater agreement. To help decide when and how to use LLMs in human-subject studies, we propose model-model agreement as a predictor of whether a given task is suitable for LLMs at all, and model confidence as a means to select specific samples where LLMs can safely replace human annotators. Overall, our work is the first step toward mixed human-LLM evaluations in software engineering.

Related papers

• Understanding the Human-LLM Dynamic: A Literature Survey of LLM Use in Programming Tasks [0.850206009406913]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming programming practices, offering significant capabilities for code generation activities. This paper focuses on their use in programming tasks, drawing insights from user studies that assess the impact of LLMs on programming tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T19:34:46Z)
• An Empirical Study on Usage and Perceptions of LLMs in a Software Engineering Project [1.433758865948252]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a leap in artificial intelligence, excelling in tasks using human language(s) In this paper, we analyze the AI-generated code, prompts used for code generation, and the human intervention levels to integrate the code into the code base. Our findings suggest that LLMs can play a crucial role in the early stages of software development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T14:32:32Z)
• Human-Instruction-Free LLM Self-Alignment with Limited Samples [64.69906311787055]
  We propose an algorithm that can self-align large language models (LLMs) iteratively without active human involvement. Unlike existing works, our algorithm relies on neither human-crafted instructions nor labeled rewards, significantly reducing human involvement. We show that our method can unlock the LLMs' self-generalization ability to perform alignment with near-zero human supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-06T14:00:12Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations. We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• LLM-in-the-loop: Leveraging Large Language Model for Thematic Analysis [18.775126929754833]
  Thematic analysis (TA) has been widely used for analyzing qualitative data in many disciplines and fields. Human coders develop and deepen their data interpretation and coding over multiple iterations, making TA labor-intensive and time-consuming. We propose a human-LLM collaboration framework (i.e., LLM-in-the-loop) to conduct TA with in-context learning (ICL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:05:59Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z)
• Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Tasks [12.723777984461693]
  Large language models (LLMs) are remarkable data annotators. Crowdsourcing, an important, inexpensive way to obtain human annotations, may itself be impacted by LLMs. We estimate that 33-46% of crowd workers used LLMs when completing a task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-13T16:46:24Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.