Keeping Humans in the Loop: Human-Centered Automated Annotation with Generative AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.09467v2
• Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 15:41:27 GMT
• Title: Keeping Humans in the Loop: Human-Centered Automated Annotation with Generative AI
• Authors: Nicholas Pangakis, Samuel Wolken,
• Abstract summary: We use GPT-4 to replicate 27 annotation tasks across 11 password-protected datasets. For each task, we compare GPT-4 annotations against human-annotated ground-truth labels and against annotations from separate supervised classification models fine-tuned on human-generated labels. Our findings underscore the importance of a human-centered workflow and careful evaluation standards.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated text annotation is a compelling use case for generative large language models (LLMs) in social media research. Recent work suggests that LLMs can achieve strong performance on annotation tasks; however, these studies evaluate LLMs on a small number of tasks and likely suffer from contamination due to a reliance on public benchmark datasets. Here, we test a human-centered framework for responsibly evaluating artificial intelligence tools used in automated annotation. We use GPT-4 to replicate 27 annotation tasks across 11 password-protected datasets from recently published computational social science articles in high-impact journals. For each task, we compare GPT-4 annotations against human-annotated ground-truth labels and against annotations from separate supervised classification models fine-tuned on human-generated labels. Although the quality of LLM labels is generally high, we find significant variation in LLM performance across tasks, even within datasets. Our findings underscore the importance of a human-centered workflow and careful evaluation standards: Automated annotations significantly diverge from human judgment in numerous scenarios, despite various optimization strategies such as prompt tuning. Grounding automated annotation in validation labels generated by humans is essential for responsible evaluation.

Related papers

• UniSumEval: Towards Unified, Fine-Grained, Multi-Dimensional Summarization Evaluation for LLMs [19.097842830790405]
  Existing benchmarks for summarization quality evaluation often lack diverse input scenarios and focus on narrowly defined dimensions. We create UniSumEval benchmark, which extends the range of input context and provides fine-grained, multi-dimensional annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T02:56:35Z)
• Self-Training with Pseudo-Label Scorer for Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction [54.23208041792073]
  Aspect Sentiment Quad Prediction (ASQP) aims to predict all quads (aspect term, aspect category, opinion term, sentiment polarity) for a given review. A key challenge in the ASQP task is the scarcity of labeled data, which limits the performance of existing methods. We propose a self-training framework with a pseudo-label scorer, wherein a scorer assesses the match between reviews and their pseudo-labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T05:30:21Z)
• Knowledge Distillation in Automated Annotation: Supervised Text Classification with LLM-Generated Training Labels [0.0]
  We assess the potential for researchers to augment or replace human-generated training data with surrogate training labels from large language models (LLMs) We employ a novel corpus of English-language text classification data sets from recent CSS articles in high-impact journals. For each task, we compare supervised classifiers fine-tuned using GPT-4 labels against classifiers fine-tuned with human annotations and against labels from GPT-4 and Mistral-7B with few-shot in-context learning. Our findings indicate that supervised classification models fine-tuned on LLM-generated labels perform comparably to models fine-tuned with labels from human
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T15:20:25Z)
• Enhancing Text Classification through LLM-Driven Active Learning and Human Annotation [2.0411082897313984]
  This study introduces a novel methodology that integrates human annotators and Large Language Models. The proposed framework integrates human annotation with the output of LLMs, depending on the model uncertainty levels. The empirical results show a substantial decrease in the costs associated with data annotation while either maintaining or improving model accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T21:45:48Z)
• TnT-LLM: Text Mining at Scale with Large Language Models [24.731544646232962]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) automate the process of end-to-end label generation and assignment with minimal human effort. We show that TnT-LLM generates more accurate and relevant label when compared against state-of-the-art baselines. We also share our practical experiences and insights on the challenges and opportunities of using LLMs for large-scale text mining in real-world applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-18T18:45:28Z)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validation [0.0]
  Generative large language models (LLMs) can be a powerful tool for augmenting text annotation procedures. We outline a workflow to harness the annotation potential of LLMs in a principled, efficient way. We find that LLM performance for text annotation is promising but highly contingent on both the dataset and the type of annotation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T20:50:45Z)
• 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)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)
• Not All Errors are Equal: Learning Text Generation Metrics using Stratified Error Synthesis [79.18261352971284]
  We introduce SESCORE, a model-based metric that is highly correlated with human judgements without requiring human annotation. We evaluate SESCORE against existing metrics by comparing how their scores correlate with human ratings. SESCORE even achieves comparable performance to the best supervised metric COMET, despite receiving no human-annotated training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-10T22:30:26Z)

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.