SHALA-LLM: Smartly Handling Ambiguous Labels in Aligning LLMs

Human annotators frequently disagree on emotion labels, yet most evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) emotion annotation collapse these judgments into a single gold standard, discarding the distributional information that disagreement encodes. We ask whether LLMs capture the structure of this disagreement, not just majority labels, by comparing emotion judgment distributions between human annotators and four zero-shot LLMs, plus a fine-tuned RoBERTa baseline, across two complementary benchmarks: GoEmotions and EmoBank, totaling 640,000 LLM responses. Zero-shot models diverge substantially from human distributions, and in-domain fine-tuning, not model scale, is required to close the gap. We formalize a lexical-grounding gradient through a quantitative transparency score that predicts per-category human--LLM agreement: LLMs reliably capture emotions with explicit lexical markers but systematically fail on pragmatically complex emotions requiring contextual inference, a pattern that replicates across both categorical and continuous emotion frameworks. We further propose three lightweight post-hoc calibration methods that reduce the distributional gap by up to 14%, and provide actionable guidelines for when LLM emotion annotations can, and cannot, substitute for human labeling.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), the efficient alternative to PPO-based RLHF, falls short on knowledge-intensive generation: standard preference signals from human annotators or LLM judges exhibit a systematic verbosity bias that rewards fluency over logical correctness. This blindspot leaves a logical alignment gap -- SFT models reach NLI entailment of only 0.05-0.22 despite producing fluent text. We propose RLearner-LLM with Hybrid-DPO: an automated preference pipeline that fuses a DeBERTa-v3 NLI signal with a verifier LLM score, removing human annotation while overcoming the "alignment tax" of single-signal optimization. Evaluated across five academic domains (Biology, Medicine, Law) with three base architectures (LLaMA-2-13B, Qwen3-8B, Gemma 4 E4B-it), RLearner-LLM yields up to 6x NLI improvement over SFT, with NLI gains in 11 of 15 cells and consistent answer-coverage gains. On Gemma 4 E4B-it (4.5B effective params), Hybrid-DPO lifts NLI in four of five domains (+11.9% to +2.4x) with faster inference across all five, scaling down to compact base models without losing the alignment-tax mitigation. Our Qwen3-8B RLearner-LLM wins 95% of pairwise comparisons against its own SFT baseline; GPT-4o-mini in turn wins 95% against our concise output -- alongside the 69% win the same judge gives a verbose SFT over our DPO model, this replicates verbosity bias on a frontier comparator and motivates logic-aware metrics (NLI, ACR) over LLM-as-a-judge for knowledge-intensive generation.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.