Can LLMs Assist Annotators in Identifying Morality Frames? -- Case Study on Vaccination Debate on Social Media

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01991v2
• Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 03:16:10 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Assist Annotators in Identifying Morality Frames? -- Case Study on Vaccination Debate on Social Media
• Authors: Tunazzina Islam, Dan Goldwasser,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are adept at adapting new tasks through few-shot learning. Our research explores LLMs' potential to assist human annotators in identifying morality frames within vaccination debates on social media.
• Score: 22.976609127865732
• License:
• Abstract: Nowadays, social media is pivotal in shaping public discourse, especially on polarizing issues like vaccination, where diverse moral perspectives influence individual opinions. In NLP, data scarcity and complexity of psycholinguistic tasks, such as identifying morality frames, make relying solely on human annotators costly, time-consuming, and prone to inconsistency due to cognitive load. To address these issues, we leverage large language models (LLMs), which are adept at adapting new tasks through few-shot learning, utilizing a handful of in-context examples coupled with explanations that connect examples to task principles. Our research explores LLMs' potential to assist human annotators in identifying morality frames within vaccination debates on social media. We employ a two-step process: generating concepts and explanations with LLMs, followed by human evaluation using a "think-aloud" tool. Our study shows that integrating LLMs into the annotation process enhances accuracy, reduces task difficulty, lowers cognitive load, suggesting a promising avenue for human-AI collaboration in complex psycholinguistic tasks.

Related papers

• Human-Readable Adversarial Prompts: An Investigation into LLM Vulnerabilities Using Situational Context [49.13497493053742]
  Previous research on LLM vulnerabilities often relied on nonsensical adversarial prompts, which were easily detectable by automated methods. We address this gap by focusing on human-readable adversarial prompts, a more realistic and potent threat. Our key contributions are situation-driven attacks leveraging movie scripts to create contextually relevant, human-readable prompts that successfully deceive LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T21:43:52Z)
• NewsInterview: a Dataset and a Playground to Evaluate LLMs' Ground Gap via Informational Interviews [65.35458530702442]
  We focus on journalistic interviews, a domain rich in grounding communication and abundant in data. We curate a dataset of 40,000 two-person informational interviews from NPR and CNN. LLMs are significantly less likely than human interviewers to use acknowledgements and to pivot to higher-level questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T01:37:38Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Interactive Dialogue Agents via Reinforcement Learning on Hindsight Regenerations [58.65755268815283]
  Many real dialogues are interactive, meaning an agent's utterances will influence their conversational partner, elicit information, or change their opinion. We use this fact to rewrite and augment existing suboptimal data, and train via offline reinforcement learning (RL) an agent that outperforms both prompting and learning from unaltered human demonstrations. Our results in a user study with real humans show that our approach greatly outperforms existing state-of-the-art dialogue agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T21:37:51Z)
• The Future of Learning in the Age of Generative AI: Automated Question Generation and Assessment with Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) This chapter explores the transformative potential of LLMs in automated question generation and answer assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T15:54:53Z)
• Advancing Annotation of Stance in Social Media Posts: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and Crowd Sourcing [2.936331223824117]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated text annotation in social media posts has garnered significant interest. We analyze the performance of eight open-source and proprietary LLMs for annotating the stance expressed in social media posts. A significant finding of our study is that the explicitness of text expressing a stance plays a critical role in how faithfully LLMs' stance judgments match humans'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T17:26:07Z)
• Automating Thematic Analysis: How LLMs Analyse Controversial Topics [5.025737475817937]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are promising analytical tools. This paper explores how LLMs can support thematic analysis of controversial topics. Our findings highlight intriguing overlaps and variances in thematic categorisation between human and machine agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-11T05:28:25Z)
• How do Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts between Honesty and Helpfulness? [14.706111954807021]
  We use psychological models and experiments designed to characterize human behavior to analyze large language models. We find that reinforcement learning from human feedback improves both honesty and helpfulness. GPT-4 Turbo demonstrates human-like response patterns including sensitivity to the conversational framing and listener's decision context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-11T19:13:26Z)
• Do LLM Agents Exhibit Social Behavior? [5.094340963261968]
  State-Understanding-Value-Action (SUVA) is a framework to systematically analyze responses in social contexts. It assesses social behavior through both their final decisions and the response generation processes leading to those decisions. We demonstrate that utterance-based reasoning reliably predicts LLMs' final actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-23T08:46:53Z)
• Exploring Collaboration Mechanisms for LLM Agents: A Social Psychology View [60.80731090755224]
  This paper probes the collaboration mechanisms among contemporary NLP systems by practical experiments with theoretical insights. We fabricate four unique societies' comprised of LLM agents, where each agent is characterized by a specific trait' (easy-going or overconfident) and engages in collaboration with a distinct thinking pattern' (debate or reflection) Our results further illustrate that LLM agents manifest human-like social behaviors, such as conformity and consensus reaching, mirroring social psychology theories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T15:05:52Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)

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.