Just Put a Human in the Loop? Investigating LLM-Assisted Annotation for Subjective Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15821v1
• Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 17:29:21 GMT
• Title: Just Put a Human in the Loop? Investigating LLM-Assisted Annotation for Subjective Tasks
• Authors: Hope Schroeder, Deb Roy, Jad Kabbara,
• Abstract summary: In subjective annotation tasks with multiple plausible answers, reviewing LLM outputs can change the label distribution.<n>We conducted a pre-registered experiment with 410 unique annotators and over 7,000 annotations.<n>We find that presenting crowdworkers with LLM-generated annotation suggestions did not make them faster, but did improve their self-reported confidence in the task.
• Score: 18.695435335031355
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM use in annotation is becoming widespread, and given LLMs' overall promising performance and speed, simply "reviewing" LLM annotations in interpretive tasks can be tempting. In subjective annotation tasks with multiple plausible answers, reviewing LLM outputs can change the label distribution, impacting both the evaluation of LLM performance, and analysis using these labels in a social science task downstream. We conducted a pre-registered experiment with 410 unique annotators and over 7,000 annotations testing three AI assistance conditions against controls, using two models, and two datasets. We find that presenting crowdworkers with LLM-generated annotation suggestions did not make them faster, but did improve their self-reported confidence in the task. More importantly, annotators strongly took the LLM suggestions, significantly changing the label distribution compared to the baseline. When these labels created with LLM assistance are used to evaluate LLM performance, reported model performance significantly increases. We believe our work underlines the importance of understanding the impact of LLM-assisted annotation on subjective, qualitative tasks, on the creation of gold data for training and testing, and on the evaluation of NLP systems on subjective tasks.

Related papers

• LLM4VV: Evaluating Cutting-Edge LLMs for Generation and Evaluation of Directive-Based Parallel Programming Model Compiler Tests [7.6818904666624395]
  This paper proposes a dual-LLM system and experiments with the usage of LLMs for the generation of compiler tests.<n>It is evident that LLMs possess the promising potential to generate quality compiler tests and verify them automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-29T02:34:28Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models to Follow Instructions and Hallucinate Less via Effective Data Filtering [66.5524727179286]
  NOVA is a framework designed to identify high-quality data that aligns well with the learned knowledge to reduce hallucinations.<n>It includes Internal Consistency Probing (ICP) and Semantic Equivalence Identification (SEI) to measure how familiar the LLM is with instruction data.<n>To ensure the quality of selected samples, we introduce an expert-aligned reward model, considering characteristics beyond just familiarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T08:05:56Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• Toward Self-Improvement of LLMs via Imagination, Searching, and Criticizing [56.75702900542643]
  We introduce AlphaLLM for the self-improvements of Large Language Models.<n>It integrates Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with LLMs to establish a self-improving loop.<n>Our experimental results show that AlphaLLM significantly enhances the performance of LLMs without additional annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:21:34Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• Take One Step at a Time to Know Incremental Utility of Demonstration: An Analysis on Reranking for Few-Shot In-Context Learning [23.932500424117244]
  In-Context Learning (ICL) is an emergent capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) Previous studies have shown that using LLMs' outputs as labels is effective in training models to select demonstrations. This paper presents an analysis on different utility functions by focusing on LLMs' output probability given ground-truth output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:03:54Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task [54.48899723591296]
  The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. We benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T16:32:54Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.