Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative language

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28119v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 12:28:54 GMT
• Title: Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative language
• Abstract summary: Linguists in training, a trained linguist, and annotations generated by large language models (LLMs) are compared.<n>We focus on the Appraisal theory and its Attitude subsystem, including the categories (classes) of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation.<n>We find that models perform best compared to annotations conducted by the trained linguist, while linguists in training do not reach high agreement scores.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: In this paper, we draw a comparison between linguists in training, a trained linguist, and annotations generated by large language models (LLMs) to find out if they struggle with complex linguistic phenomena in a similar way. For this purpose, we analyse evaluative language in spoken popular science discourse, with the example of a corpus of English TED talk transcripts. We focus on the Appraisal theory and its Attitude subsystem, including the categories (classes) of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation. In this context, Appraisal theory is an example of a highly subjective annotation task, making it a suitable example for the study of complex annotation challenges. First, we assess human annotations on a sentence level in specific scientific domains. Then, we develop three prompts and compare them for model performance for the automatic classification of Appraisal classes. We assess the performance of three LLMs using the best-performing prompt and finetune the model, reaching an F1-score of 0.77. We find that models perform best compared to annotations conducted by the trained linguist, while linguists in training do not reach high agreement scores. We conclude that LLMs can aid in complex annotation task resolution, opening new pathways for the complex theories annotated and analyzed in digital humanities studies.

Related papers

• Towards Corpus-Grounded Agentic LLMs for Multilingual Grammatical Analysis [0.5545791216381869]
  We explore how agentic large language models (LLMs) can streamline the systematic analysis of annotated corpora.<n>We introduce an agentic framework for corpus-grounded grammatical analysis that integrates concepts such as natural-language task interpretation.<n>We test the system on multilingual grammatical tasks inspired by the World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-28T21:27:58Z)
• Comparing LLM Text Annotation Skills: A Study on Human Rights Violations in Social Media Data [2.812898346527047]
  This study investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for zero-shot and few-shot annotation of social media posts in Russian and Ukrainian.<n>To evaluate the effectiveness of these models, their annotations are compared against a gold standard set of human double-annotated labels.<n>The study explores the unique patterns of errors and disagreements exhibited by each model, offering insights into their strengths, limitations, and cross-linguistic adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:10:47Z)
• A linguistically-motivated evaluation methodology for unraveling model's abilities in reading comprehension tasks [10.181408678232055]
  We introduce an evaluation methodology for reading comprehension tasks based on the intuition that certain examples consistently yield lower scores regardless of model size or architecture.<n>We capitalize on semantic frame annotation for characterizing this complexity, and study seven complexity factors that may account for model's difficulty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T11:05:20Z)
• Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models [60.522749986793094]
  We draw on three years of experience in evaluating large language models to provide guidance and lessons for researchers. We present the Language Model Evaluation Harness (lm-eval), an open source library for independent, reproducible, and evaluation of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T16:50:49Z)
• Holmes: A Benchmark to Assess the Linguistic Competence of Language Models [59.627729608055006]
  We introduce Holmes, a new benchmark designed to assess language models (LMs) linguistic competence. We use computation-based probing to examine LMs' internal representations regarding distinct linguistic phenomena. As a result, we meet recent calls to disentangle LMs' linguistic competence from other cognitive abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T17:58:36Z)
• Can Large Language Models Understand Context? [17.196362853457412]
  This paper introduces a context understanding benchmark by adapting existing datasets to suit the evaluation of generative models. Experimental results indicate that pre-trained dense models struggle with understanding more nuanced contextual features when compared to state-of-the-art fine-tuned models. As LLM compression holds growing significance in both research and real-world applications, we assess the context understanding of quantized models under in-context-learning settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T18:55:29Z)
• SOUL: Towards Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language [96.74878032417054]
  We propose a new task called Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language (SOUL) SOUL aims to evaluate sentiment understanding through two subtasks: Review (RC) and Justification Generation (JG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:48:48Z)
• Disco-Bench: A Discourse-Aware Evaluation Benchmark for Language Modelling [70.23876429382969]
  We propose a benchmark that can evaluate intra-sentence discourse properties across a diverse set of NLP tasks. Disco-Bench consists of 9 document-level testsets in the literature domain, which contain rich discourse phenomena. For linguistic analysis, we also design a diagnostic test suite that can examine whether the target models learn discourse knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-16T15:18:25Z)
• Syntax and Semantics Meet in the "Middle": Probing the Syntax-Semantics Interface of LMs Through Agentivity [68.8204255655161]
  We present the semantic notion of agentivity as a case study for probing such interactions. This suggests LMs may potentially serve as more useful tools for linguistic annotation, theory testing, and discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T16:24:01Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)<n>We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.<n>Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.