cs.LGJun 25, 2026

Can Large Language Models Reliably Code Qualitative Humanitarian Data? A Benchmark Study Against Human Expert Adjudication

Authors: Jerome Marston, Tino Kreutzer, Salomé Garnier, Ella Boone, Phuong N Pham, Patrick Vinck

Organizations: Kobo Inc · McGill University · Harvard University

Abstract

Data from affected populations are crucial for informing humanitarian response, but their value depends on timely and consistent interpretation of nuanced accounts of need. Humanitarian organizations often lack the staff, time, and specialist expertise required to analyze this information at scale. Large language models (LLMs) may expand this capacity, but their reliability for coding qualitative humanitarian data has not been directly established. This benchmark study compares 46 LLMs to a human Gold Standard using 150 high-fidelity synthetic humanitarian transcripts. Evaluation combined inter-rater reliability testing with Krippendorff's alpha, discrepancy analysis distinguishing correct, near-correct, and incorrect codes, and qualitative assessment across humanitarian-specific criteria including discrimination, complex needs hierarchies, and non-standard communication styles. The authors find that multiple LLMs can perform deductive coding at reliability levels comparable to experienced human coders, especially when structured prompts and reasoning-enabled configurations are used. At the same time, aggregate reliability metrics alone are insufficient for deployment decisions. Models varied in recognizing needs expressed indirectly, needs outside predefined categories, and protection-relevant concerns such as physical safety and discrimination. These findings suggest that LLMs can materially expand humanitarian analytical capacity, but not as substitutes for human judgment. Appropriate use requires structured codebooks, reasoning-enabled models, attention to theme-specific performance, and tiered oversight focused on categories where miscoding would have the greatest programmatic consequences. For sensitive humanitarian data, open-weights models deployed on self-hosted infrastructure may offer a viable path for combining analytical scalability with stronger data governance.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 30, 2026cs.HC

Agreement Is Not Quality: Blind Expert Verification of Human and LLM Qualitative Coding When Human Consensus Is Not Ground Truth

Evaluations of LLM-assisted qualitative coding almost universally measure model performance as agreement with human coders, a practice that presumes human coding is the standard to approximate. This study provides empirical evidence that the presumption fails in ways agreement metrics cannot detect. Five LLM systems and three trained human coders independently applied a 72-item hierarchical codebook to 2,560 educator messages from a K-12 AI platform. Beyond conventional agreement analysis, an independent domain expert judged 855 pairwise comparisons of code sets blind to source, treating human and machine sources symmetrically. The two evaluation approaches diverge in both directions. Human-LLM agreement (mean Jaccard 0.30) falls well below human-human agreement (0.52), which standard practice would read as inferior LLM coding, yet the blind verifier preferred human and LLM coding at indistinguishable rates (51.5% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.537), and a Bradley-Terry ranking placed two LLMs above two of three human coders. For several substantive codes, human consensus encoded shared bias that the verifier rejected in favor of the LLM interpretation. Agreement-based evaluation is therefore insufficient for automation decisions, and the study demonstrates a transferable verification protocol and a code-level division-of-labor framework.
Alex Liu, Lief Esbenshade, Michael Xiao +4
Code QualityInter-Rater VariabilityLlm-DrivenVerificationHumanityGround Truth
AskPDF
Jul 30, 2026cs.HC

Human-LLM Collaborative Inductive Coding for Conceptualizing K-12 Educator AI Use

Qualitative researchers increasingly encounter interaction corpora whose scale exceeds what manual coding alone can address, and large language models (LLMs) are frequently proposed as analytic assistants. The open questions are not whether LLMs can participate in qualitative analysis but to what extent, in what phases, and under what safeguards. This article provides a detailed procedural account of a multi-phase human-LLM collaborative pipeline that adapted open, axial, and selective coding to develop a hierarchical codebook from 45,000 messages exchanged between K-12 educators and a generative AI platform. Across three phases, LLMs generated candidate labels and structured annotations at scale, while human researchers retained conceptual authority over category definitions, merging decisions, and interpretive frameworks. The resulting instrument was then tested through systematic human coding, in which three trained coders with educational domain expertise applied the codebook to an independent sample of 2,560 messages, established reliability through iterative calibration using set-valued agreement measures appropriate for multi-label annotation, and extended the instrument with five codes that the LLM-assisted phases had not surfaced. The final codebook comprises 72 items within 19 categories and six domains. We reflect on the methodological decisions the pipeline required, including the choice of a conversational unit of analysis, the treatment of the LLM as a labeling instrument rather than an interpretive agent, the measurement of intercoder agreement under multi-label coding, and the conditions under which human domain expertise remained decisive. The account is offered as an auditable template for qualitative researchers considering LLM assistance in codebook development while preserving human interpretive authority.
Alex Liu, Min Sun, Lief Esbenshade +4
Pedagogical FrameworksInterpretive OpennessCodebooksConversational Context
AskPDF
May 23, 2026cs.AI

Agent-as-Peer-Debriefer: A Multi-Agent Framework with Perspective-Based Refinement for Qualitative Analysis

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for qualitative data analysis (QDA), yet their outputs often miss the depth and nuance of human analysis. We argue this gap reflects a missing credibility practice from human QDA: peer debriefing, in which an analyst seeks feedback from a disinterested peer and uses it to refine their coding. To bring this practice into LLM-assisted QDA, we propose Agent-as-Peer-Debriefer, a multi-agent QDA framework that builds peer debriefing into key coding steps. In our framework, a Hierarchical Coding Agent follows the standard QDA process to generate codes, sub-themes, and themes, along with self-explanations and reflection memos. It then shares these outputs with three Peer-Debriefing Agents, each applying a distinct analytical perspective (Theory-Driven, Data-Driven, or Applied) and refining the codes by keeping, renaming, reassigning, merging, or splitting them. These perspectives are drawn from established human QDA practices that generalize across domains and datasets. To evaluate the framework, we test it on three datasets across two domains with three LLMs, measuring semantic similarity to human-annotated codes. Across all settings, perspective-based, peer-debriefing refinement aligns more closely with human codes than a single-LLM baseline, and an ablation further shows the gain is not merely from additional refinement. The three perspectives also produce distinct trade-offs, showing that the choice of perspective is a meaningful and controllable design decision. More broadly, these findings suggest that simulating peer debriefing with explicit perspectives is a promising route to more credible LLM-assisted QDA.
Zhimin Lin, Kun Cheng, Zhiyao Shu +4
Topic pending
AskPDF