How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06387v1
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 12:15:27 GMT
• Title: How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators
• Authors: Shang Liu, Hanzhao Wang, Zhongyao Ma, Xiaocheng Li,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the questions of assessing the performance of human annotators and incentivizing them to provide high-quality annotations. We develop a principal-agent model to characterize the behaviors of and the interactions between the company and the human annotators. The model rationalizes a practical mechanism of a bonus scheme to incentivize annotators which benefits both parties.
• Score: 8.244694683982784
• License:
• Abstract: Human-annotated preference data play an important role in aligning large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we investigate the questions of assessing the performance of human annotators and incentivizing them to provide high-quality annotations. The quality assessment of language/text annotation faces two challenges: (i) the intrinsic heterogeneity among annotators, which prevents the classic methods that assume the underlying existence of a true label; and (ii) the unclear relationship between the annotation quality and the performance of downstream tasks, which excludes the possibility of inferring the annotators' behavior based on the model performance trained from the annotation data. Then we formulate a principal-agent model to characterize the behaviors of and the interactions between the company and the human annotators. The model rationalizes a practical mechanism of a bonus scheme to incentivize annotators which benefits both parties and it underscores the importance of the joint presence of an assessment system and a proper contract scheme. From a technical perspective, our analysis extends the existing literature on the principal-agent model by considering a continuous action space for the agent. We show the gap between the first-best and the second-best solutions (under the continuous action space) is of $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n \log n})$ for the binary contracts and $\Theta(1/n)$ for the linear contracts, where $n$ is the number of samples used for performance assessment; this contrasts with the known result of $\exp(-\Theta(n))$ for the binary contracts when the action space is discrete. Throughout the paper, we use real preference annotation data to accompany our discussions.

Related papers

• Annotator in the Loop: A Case Study of In-Depth Rater Engagement to Create a Bridging Benchmark Dataset [1.825224193230824]
  We describe a novel, collaborative, and iterative annotator-in-the-loop methodology for annotation. Our findings indicate that collaborative engagement with annotators can enhance annotation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T19:11:08Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Tasks [9.110872603799839]
  Supervised classification heavily depends on datasets annotated by humans. In subjective tasks such as toxicity classification, these annotations often exhibit low agreement among raters. In this work, we propose textbfAnnotator Awares for Texts (AART) for subjective classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:18:32Z)
• Coherent Entity Disambiguation via Modeling Topic and Categorical Dependency [87.16283281290053]
  Previous entity disambiguation (ED) methods adopt a discriminative paradigm, where prediction is made based on matching scores between mention context and candidate entities. We propose CoherentED, an ED system equipped with novel designs aimed at enhancing the coherence of entity predictions. We achieve new state-of-the-art results on popular ED benchmarks, with an average improvement of 1.3 F1 points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T16:40:13Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• Using Positive Matching Contrastive Loss with Facial Action Units to mitigate bias in Facial Expression Recognition [6.015556590955814]
  We propose to mitigate bias by guiding the model's focus towards task-relevant features using domain knowledge. We show that incorporating task-relevant features via our method can improve model fairness at minimal cost to classification performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-08T21:28:02Z)
• WSLRec: Weakly Supervised Learning for Neural Sequential Recommendation Models [24.455665093145818]
  We propose a novel model-agnostic training approach called WSLRec, which adopts a three-stage framework: pre-training, top-$k$ mining, intrinsic and fine-tuning. WSLRec resolves the incompleteness problem by pre-training models on extra weak supervisions from model-free methods like BR and ItemCF, while resolving the inaccuracy problem by leveraging the top-$k$ mining to screen out reliable user-item relevance from weak supervisions for fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-28T08:55:12Z)
• SAIS: Supervising and Augmenting Intermediate Steps for Document-Level Relation Extraction [51.27558374091491]
  We propose to explicitly teach the model to capture relevant contexts and entity types by supervising and augmenting intermediate steps (SAIS) for relation extraction. Based on a broad spectrum of carefully designed tasks, our proposed SAIS method not only extracts relations of better quality due to more effective supervision, but also retrieves the corresponding supporting evidence more accurately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T17:37:35Z)

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.