Large-scale text annotation brings expert insight to millions of documents, often through a codebook that AI annotators follow. Developing a robust codebook, however, takes months. Large language models (LLMs) could speed this process by applying an early codebook to the data, surfacing cases with strong LLM disagreement, and eliciting expert feedback to address them. We examined three ways experts can provide feedback for LLM codebook revision: (i) editing LLM-generated revisions driven by cross-LLM disagreement (Codebook Verifying), (ii) answering questions about LLM disagreements (Question Answering), and (iii) labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on thousands of tutoring-session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling yielded the highest LLM-labeling accuracy (64.9%) against expert labels, outperforming the expert-revised codebook (57.8%). The best Question Answering setting also outperformed it (60.5%). Our work shows that LLMs can be used to strategically target expert attention, shortening months of codebook revision to days without sacrificing labeling performance.
An LLM judge evaluates outputs at scale. Experts should label only where it is least sure. Its natural escalation signal conflates two uncertainties: aleatoric, real disagreement in the expert pool, which labels cannot reduce, and epistemic, the judge's ignorance, which labels do reduce. A small Bayesian model separates them: a regression on labels already collected learns how far to trust a black-box judge's prediction. Both components follow as simple formulas, with no sampling or further judge calls. The components isolate on a real LLM judge against exactly known truth, and stated confidence is no guide to its actual error. On real human disagreement (ChaosNLI) the epistemic ranking removes 83% more error than total uncertainty for the same expert labels, though simply escalating the least-labelled items does as well there. We demonstrate we can estimate where a judge is ignorant rather than where experts genuinely disagree, and propose using this to direct expert labelling. Code and data are available at https://github.com/composo-ai/judge-uncertainty-decomposition.
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.
Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.