LLMs as annotators of credibility assessment in Danish asylum decisions: evaluating classification performance and errors beyond aggregated metrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13412v1
• Date: Wed, 13 May 2026 12:07:47 GMT
• Title: LLMs as annotators of credibility assessment in Danish asylum decisions: evaluating classification performance and errors beyond aggregated metrics
• Abstract summary: Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation.<n>We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata.<n>We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification.
• Score: 21.604030114864642
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation, yet their effectiveness remains underexplored for underrepresented languages and specialized domains where the class definition requires subtle expert understanding. We investigate LLM-based annotation for a novel legal NLP task: identifying the presence and sentiment of credibility assessments in asylum decision texts. We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata such as annotator confidence and asylum case outcome. We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification. We zoom in on the errors made by top-performing models and prompts, investigating error consistency across LLMs, inter-class confusion, correlation with human confidence and sample-wise difficulty and severity of LLM mistakes. Our results confirm the potential of LLMs for cost-effective labeling of asylum decisions, but highlight the imperfect and inconsistent nature of LLM annotators, and the need to look beyond the predictions of a single, arbitrarily chosen model. The RAB-Cred dataset and code are available at https://github.com/glhr/RAB-Cred

Related papers

• Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models [54.26923012617675]
  We unveil and study idiosyncrasies in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We find that fine-tuning text embedding models on LLM-generated texts yields excellent classification accuracy.<n>We leverage LLM as judges to generate detailed, open-ended descriptions of each model's idiosyncrasies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T18:59:02Z)
• When LLMs Struggle: Reference-less Translation Evaluation for Low-resource Languages [9.138590152838754]
  Segment-level quality estimation (QE) is a challenging cross-lingual language understanding task.<n>We comprehensively evaluate large language models (LLMs) in zero/few-shot scenarios.<n>Our results indicate that prompt-based approaches are outperformed by the encoder-based fine-tuned QE models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T12:54:05Z)
• Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance [28.524573212179124]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process.<n>We compare expert, crowd-sourced, and LLM-based annotations in terms of the agreement, label quality, and efficiency.<n>Our findings reveal a substantial number of label errors, which, when corrected, a significant upward shift in reported model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T16:27:03Z)
• MQM-APE: Toward High-Quality Error Annotation Predictors with Automatic Post-Editing in LLM Translation Evaluators [53.91199933655421]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant potential as judges for Machine Translation (MT) quality assessment.<n>We introduce a universal and training-free framework, $textbfMQM-APE, based on the idea of filtering out non-impactful errors.<n>Experiments show that our approach consistently improves both the reliability and quality of error spans against GEMBA-MQM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-22T06:43:40Z)
• Paraphrase and Aggregate with Large Language Models for Minimizing Intent Classification Errors [19.601600598570215]
  We show that large language models (LLM) can achieve high performance on large multi-class classification tasks but still make classification errors and worse, generate out-of-vocabulary class labels. We introduce Paraphrase and AGgregate (PAG)-LLM approach wherein an LLM generates multiple paraphrases of the input query (parallel queries) We show that PAG-LLM is especially effective for hard examples where LLM is uncertain, and reduces the critical misclassification and hallucinated label generation errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T22:30:26Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• 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)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)

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.