Activating the Annotator: Operationalising Lived Experience in Data Annotation

Subjective NLP datasets typically aggregate annotator judgments into a single gold label, making it difficult to diagnose whether disagreement reflects unclear criteria, collapsed distinctions, or legitimate plurality. We propose a schema-level diagnostic for auditing expert-designed annotation schemas prior to gold-label commitment, using only multi-annotator criterion judgments. The diagnostic separates two failure modes: unstable criteria with hard-to-operationalize boundaries, and systematic overlap that blurs the boundaries between mutually exclusive categories. Applied to persuasive value extraction in commercial documents, we find that disagreement is not diffuse: instability concentrates in a few criteria, while nearly half of covered sentences activate multiple categories. These signals align with where domain experts disagree, yielding an evidence-based audit for tightening guidelines, revising category structure, or reconsidering the annotation paradigm.

Free-text explanations extend human label variation (HLV) beyond label disagreement by revealing the reasoning and preferences behind annotators' decisions. We study whether large language models (LLMs) can learn and reproduce such annotator-specific label-explanation behavior. Using two sentence-pair tasks with four annotators each -- natural language inference and paraphrase judgment -- we first analyze whether annotators exhibit stable individual patterns. We find that such patterns are weak at the single-annotation level due to strong input-content effects, but become detectable after input-content reduction and annotator-level aggregation. We then compare prompting and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) baselines and propose cross-annotator preference optimization (CAPO), which contrasts a target annotator's response with other valid but less target-specific annotations for the same input. Experiments show that prompting is limited and unstable, SFT better captures annotator-specific behavior, and CAPO further improves aggregation-aware imitation and judge-based attribution while preserving target-specific reasoning patterns under human validation. Overall, our results show that HLV can be learned as annotator-specific label-explanation behavior, suggesting a path toward scalable explanation-based annotation grounded in annotator histories rather than labels alone.

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.