LLM-Assisted Annotation

E-commerce platforms in emerging markets often operate with underdeveloped product catalogs that contain only category taxonomies but lack structured attribute schemas. This absence of fine-grained product attributes limits search capabilities -- preventing faceted filtering, degrading query understanding, and weakening semantic representations used by search systems. We present BEATS, a human-in-the-loop LLM framework for bootstrapping product attribute taxonomies entirely from scratch. Our approach extends a multi-stage LLM generation pipeline with two critical production stages: (1) proactive quality checking by model developers to filter erroneous outputs, and (2) human annotation by domain-expert local staff to validate generated attributes. The framework operates iteratively -- prompts at each generation stage are refined based on quality check observations and annotator feedback across successive rounds, progressively improving attribute quality. Once the attribute taxonomy is established, we employ LLMs to perform structured attribute tagging on individual product items, enriching their contextual representations. The enriched catalog directly benefits multiple components of the search system: enabling granular attribute-based filtering, providing structured features for ranking models, and improving semantic representations for dense retrieval. We validate the generated taxonomy by training dense retrieval models on attribute-enriched product data, demonstrating consistent improvements over baselines using original catalog information. Our system has been deployed at Rakuten Taiwan, enriching 9 major categories spanning 2,694 sub-categories with 67,277 generated attributes, and over 5.4 million products have been tagged with the generated attributes, with plans to enrich the entire product catalog.

Frame analysis of migration news is a socially consequential task: media scholars and researchers who study how migration is narrated need tools that are not only accurate, but transparent, auditable, and accessible within the resource constraints typical of academic research groups. Existing LLM-based approaches rely on proprietary APIs and large models that raise concerns about data privacy, reproducibility and equitable access among media researchers. This work studies how a locally deployable open-source LLM can support interpretable frame analysis as an assistive tool. We introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (SCoT) prompting approach using Llama3-8B, enabling step-by-step justifications grounded in predefined framing categories. This structured design allows users to audit model outputs and examine alternative interpretations in a task that is inherently subjective. We evaluate our approach on a dataset of migration-related news and show that SCoT improves classification performance over zero-shot and few-shot baselines while remaining feasible on a single GPU. Then, we conduct a human-centered evaluation in which annotators assess the coherence and influence of "the model's reasoning". Results indicate that SCoT explanations are generally perceived as logical (mean score 4.1/5, though with notable variation across texts) and can prompt reflection on initial interpretations, even when disagreement persists. Our findings highlight both the potential and risks of LLM-assisted frame analysis. While structured reasoning can increase the traceability of model outputs and support critical interpretation, it can also influence human judgment in subtle ways. By enabling local deployment and emphasizing human-in-the-loop interaction, this work contributes to discussions on responsible and accessible computational tools for the study of socially impactful media narratives.

Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential---yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited. Our first contribution is to present a systematic human inspection of the validation split of \textsf{FOLIO} and a subset of \textsf{MALLS} test instances, finding that approximately 42.5% and 42% of entries, respectively, contain incorrect FOL formalizations (i.e., ground truth labels), with additional rates of ambiguous NL sentences (17.8% and 51%) and incorrect NLI labels in \textsf{FOLIO} (8.4%). Our second contribution is to develop and release corrected ground truths for such datasets, showing that annotation errors distort model evaluation on a reference benchmark task: testing three state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma~4 31B-it, Qwen3-30B-A3B, and GPT-4o-mini) with the corrected ground truths yields accuracy gains from +11 to +23 percentage points. Motivated by these findings, we propose an LLM-based framework to support humans in manual reviewing NL-to-FOL datasets. By directing reviewers toward the most error-prone instances, we empirically show that it is possible to achieve 90% dataset accuracy after reviewing fewer than 20% of instances, compared to over 76% required by unguided review. We release all human-verified annotations and the code for our framework.

Fine-grained morphosyntactic error annotation is important in clinical and developmental language research, yet it is labour-intensive, expert-dependent, and difficult to scale. We present TalkTag, an LLM-based lightweight tool fine-tuned to automate CHAT-style error annotation in spoken-language transcripts. Developed under conditions of extreme data scarcity using children's narrative data, the system shows the feasibility of linguistic analysis in low-resource settings. Our evaluation demonstrates that TalkTag produces encouragingly precise annotation while effectively identifying instances where linguistic ambiguity makes automated tagging genuinely complex. In summary, with TalkTag, we provide a scalable alternative to manual error annotation and practically viable support for morphosyntactic error annotation.

Large language models excel at general tasks but underperform smaller supervised models in specialized, high-stakes domains where training labels are costly. We address this regime with EvoPool, an evolutionary multi-agent framework inspired by Darwinian evolution. Three specialized agents iteratively propose executable annotator code, a small validation set provides a fitness signal, and a deterministic gate keeps only annotators that pass viability, diversity, and marginal-contribution checks across generations. Pool votes are mapped to soft training labels by EvoAgg, a text-aware aggregator combining semantic features with annotator-vote features. The authored pool runs at near-zero per-example cost and is 4500 to 31000x faster than LLM annotation on 100K examples. Across 7 of 8 LLM-weak specialized and complex tasks spanning biomedical relation extraction, legal-clause classification, complex reasoning, and dense multi-label biomedical classification, EvoPool beats the strongest LLM annotation baseline by an average +0.141 macro-F1, peaking at +0.301 on ChemProt and +0.265 on PubMed. Code is available at: https://github.com/tianyi0216/EvoPool

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for zero-shot annotation and LLM-as-a-judge tasks, yet their reliability hinges on how model-internalized priors interact with user-provided instructions. We investigate three dimensions of this interaction: (1) how an LLM's familiarity with data and task definitions affects performance, (2) the extent to which additional information in prompts can correct zero-shot errors ("decision stickiness"), and (3) model susceptibility to misaligned task definitions. Through experiments on toxicity detection across diverse datasets (spanning social media, gaming, news, and forums) using both dense and mixture-of-experts models, we find that nearly two-thirds of zero-shot errors are resistant to correction, with an overall rescue rate (fraction of initial errors corrected by prompting) of only 34.8%. High-confidence errors prove especially resistant to correction. When given misaligned definitions, LLMs follow them while maintaining confidence levels unchanged from the aligned condition. Crucially, we introduce Definition-Specific Familiarity (DSF), which measures alignment between a model's internal concept and the task definition. After controlling for dataset-level confounds, DSF shows a positive association with model performance (partial r = +0.41), while three distinct memorization metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and embedding cosine similarity) all fail to show a positive association. These findings show the limitations of prompt-based correction in annotation tasks, highlighting the importance of definition alignment over text-level memorization.

As wind turbine fleets age, data-driven reliability engineering is essential to optimise their operation and maintenance for service life extension and levelised cost of energy reduction. Failure event descriptions within historical maintenance logs are a source of valuable reliability intelligence. However, they typically appear as unstructured natural language entries, rendering them inaccessible for quantitative analysis. This paper presents a novel methodology leveraging a large language model (LLM) to systematically standardise and structure maintenance logs based on their free-text descriptors. Operating on a dataset of 16,316 maintenance logs from 280 turbines monitored over nine years, the developed model-agnostic framework autonomously corrected hierarchical system codes and extracted evidence-based taxonomies of maintenance actions and failure modes. The automated pipeline successfully structured over 70% of the dataset. It resolved pervasive misclassification issues, such as isolating previously unclassified pitch system faults and restoring missing system codes, and enriched the records by applying empirical taxonomies to label specific actions taken and failure modes addressed. By using system-based log batches to construct empirical dictionaries of failure modes, observable symptoms, dominant mechanisms, and candidate causes, this approach reduces the inherent subjectivity of manual failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). Ultimately, the methodology provides a highly scalable, cost-effective blueprint for translating large sets of qualitative field observations into quantitative reliability metrics, laying the foundation for integrated root-cause analysis across the renewable energy sector, improved FMEA, and advanced predictive maintenance.

Reliable evaluation of agentic systems requires unbiased estimates with valid uncertainty, but standard practice navigates between costly human annotation and biased LLM-as-judge proxies. Prediction-powered inference (PPI) combines both into debiased estimates with valid confidence intervals, yet its various methods remain scattered across papers under partial implementations. We introduce GLIDE, an open-source Python library that unifies state-of-the-art PPI estimators (PPI++, Stratified PPI, Predict-Then-Debias and its stratified variants, Active Statistical Inference) and samplers (uniform, stratified, active, cost-optimal) under a scipy-style API specialized to mean estimation. GLIDE ships with a reproducible Monte Carlo validation suite, an empirically grounded decision tree for method selection, and an agentic evaluation case study showing substantial annotation savings at equivalent precision. The GLIDE package is available at this URL: https://github.com/EmertonData/glide

Public consultations generate large volumes of data in the form of stakeholder submissions that are practically unfeasible to analyse manually. We present an end-to-end LLM-based pipeline and interactive dashboard for structured topic extraction from regulatory consultation submissions, demonstrated on the European Commission's Digital Fairness Act (DFA) public call for evidence as a case study. The system processes raw PDF attachments and web-form responses, extracts topic annotations, and grounds every extraction in a verbatim quote from the source text. Applied to 4,322 DFA submissions, the pipeline produced 15,368 topic annotations supported by 20,951 verbatim evidence quotes. Three principles govern the proposed design: verbatim grounding, full traceability, and transparency by design. The dashboard exposes the full extraction dataset through five analytical views, from dataset-level topic overviews to individual paragraph drill-downs, with every result traceable to its source. Beyond the predefined DFA topic categories, the pipeline generated certain stakeholder concerns, such as Age Verification, Payment Processor Censorship, and Digital Ownership, that a fixed-taxonomy approach would have missed. The pipeline is domain-generic; adapting it to a new consultation requires only a prompt update and a new dataset. A live demo is available at https://dfa-dashboard.thalesbertaglia.com/. The code and processed data are publicly available at https://github.com/thalesbertaglia/dfa-dashboard.

Biomedical NER is deceptively simple for modern LLMs: plausible biomedical mentions are easy to surface, but corpus-convention correctness depends on annotation conventions, span boundaries, entity granularity, and type schemas. Multi-LLM agreement is a salience signal, not corpus-convention correctness. We introduce a candidate-level panel-output benchmark for panel-surfaced candidate verification, where the unit is an aligned candidate surfaced by an explicitly defined multi-model panel rather than a standalone extractor output. The benchmark aligns eight LLMs' predictions over five public biomedical NER datasets into a candidate master table. BioConCal is an in-domain supervised scorer that instantiates this layer with inference-time gold-free agreement, mention, surface-availability, and document features for a fixed candidate stream. In domain, BioConCal improves AUROC from 0.753 for raw agreement to 0.910. At a validation-selected 0.95 precision target it selects 1,340 candidates at empirical test precision 0.939, compared with 293 for raw agreement. This corresponds to candidate-level recall 0.592 and corpus-level recall 0.523 against a within-panel row-label ceiling of 0.883. The main benefit is not recovering entities missed by every panel member, but reshaping a noisy panel stream into a higher-yield review queue. Under entity-type shift, thresholds require target-domain validation, and exact character localization remains a separate deterministic post-processing step.

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.

Linking free-text phenotype descriptions to ontology terms, typically referred to as phenotype annotation, is essential for the cross-study integration of comparative morphological data. This labor intensive process has heavily relied on highly trained human experts, which makes it challenging to scale and thus a key bottleneck. Dahdul et al. (2018) established a Gold Standard (GS) of Entity-Quality (EQ) annotations across seven phylogenetic studies and used it to evaluate three human curators and the Semantic CharaParser NLP tool with ontology-based semantic similarity metrics; they reported that machine-human consistency was significantly lower than inter-curator (human-human) consistency. Here we revisit that benchmark with five frontier hosted LLMs from Anthropic and OpenAI, each operating as an "agentic curator" within a self-contained workspace that supplies the source publication PDF, the same annotation guide used by the original human curators, the four project ontologies (UBERON, PATO, BSPO, GO), and a validation script. Evaluated against the same Gold Standard, every agent fell within the range of inter-curator variability of the three trained human biocurators of the original study; the best performing agents approached but did not reach the best performing human curator. Agents substantially outperformed Semantic CharaParser on all four metrics.

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.

Linking learning resources to a structured competency framework is key to enabling competency-based search and curriculum analytics in Learning Management Systems (LMS). However, manual tagging is labor-intensive, and fully automatic methods often lack transparency. In this paper, we present an end-to-end alignment pipeline that uses a large language model (LLM) as a constrained, evidence-producing tagger. LMS resources -both instructional content and assessments -are first segmented into meaningful pedagogical fragments. For each fragment, a small set of candidate competencies is retrieved from structured competency profiles enriched with graph-based context. The LLM then selects the most relevant competencies from this set and provides supporting evidence spans from the fragment text. These predictions are refined using the structure of the competency graph and aggregated at the resource level. We evaluate our approach on a dataset built from the Computer Science department's competency referential at the Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), covering 22 competencies across multiple course materials. Our LLM+BM25+Graph (LBG) pipeline achieves strong results, with a micro-F1 of 0.57 and macro-F1 of 0.50 at the fragment level, 0.51 macro-F1 at the resource level, and an MRR of 0.82outperforming zero-shot and few-shot LLM variants, retrieval/similarity baselines, and supervised classifiers -while also producing more mechanically traceable evidence spans to support human auditing and educational analysis.

Node classification on graphs often requires labeled nodes, yet obtaining labels at graph scale is expensive. When node attributes contain semantic content, such as paper abstracts, web pages, or product descriptions, large language models (LLMs) can provide low-cost supervision by annotating a small subset of nodes. However, these LLM-generated labels are noisy, and existing label-free graph learning methods usually treat this noise as either global or class-conditional. We find that LLM annotation errors are not only class-dependent but also region-dependent: within the same class, reliability can vary sharply across feature-space clusters. In light of this, we propose Cluster-Aware Noise Estimation (CANE), a label-free learning framework that estimates cluster-conditional LLM reliability without ground truth labels, and uses this estimate to decide which pseudo-labels to trust, and which labels to correct. Across various graph benchmarks and GNN backbones, CANE improves over the strongest label-free baselines, with the largest gains on datasets exhibiting stronger cluster-conditional noise.

Hate speech annotation is costly, subjective, and prone to annotator disagreement, making large-scale dataset construction challenging. We systematically analyze how well large language models (LLMs) align with human judgments across ten theoretically grounded subjective attributes, such as dehumanization, violence, and sentiment, evaluating both small and large variants of Llama 3.1 and Qwen 2.5. Our analysis reveals a consistent split across all models: behaviorally explicit dimensions (insult, humiliate, attack-defend) correlate strongly with human annotations, while evaluative dimensions (respect, sentiment, hate speech) are systematically inverted. Demographic persona conditioning reduces model confidence without improving alignment. Building on these insights, we propose combining attribute-level LLM predictions via a confidence-weighted Ridge regression to reconstruct continuous hate speech scores from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, achieving $R^2$ of up to 0.71 and outperforming direct prompting baselines, demonstrating that structured attribute decomposition recovers a richer and more human-aligned signal than end-to-end label prediction alone.

Generating high-quality, pedagogically useful questions from lecture slide decks is difficult because important instructional content is distributed across both text and visual elements, and because useful questions must be scaffolded across the flow of a presentation rather than generated slide by slide in isolation. This paper describes Slide Deck Q&A Quality Assurance (slidesqaqa), a Flask-based software system that extracts text and rendered images from PDF slides and processes them through a four-stage large language model pipeline comprising window planning, deck synthesis, slide annotation, and reconciliation. The system reasons jointly about slide modality and pedagogical role, allocates bounded question budgets, and revises draft annotations at the deck level to reduce redundancy and improve coverage. The final output is a structured JSON annotation containing deck-level goals, section structure, slide-level summaries, question sets, and evaluation scores. Initial experiments on two technical lecture decks indicate that the pipeline can filter non-instructional slides and produce high-fidelity, pedagogically coherent questions for visually complex content. The working system is at https://slidesqaqa-974767694043.us-west1.run.app The software repository is at https://github.com/blinding2submit/slidesqaqa

Annotating speaker attributes from text is inherently ambiguous, particularly in multilingual settings where demographic and social cues are implicit and culturally variable. We propose a human-large language model (LLM) collaborative re-annotation framework for stabilizing multilingual speaker-attribute labels under practical resource constraints. Starting from a noisy corpus, we use LLMs to surface recurring annotation rationales through iterative interaction with experts, and apply disagreement-focused sampling for targeted re-annotation. Using this framework, we construct WhoSaidIt, a multilingual dataset covering nine speaker-attribute labels. We quantify divergence between original and revised annotations, benchmark recent LLMs, and analyze the effect of explicit rationales on model behavior. Our results reveal substantial cross-lingual differences in annotation decisions and demonstrate both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in speaker-attribute classification.

Evaluating structured-information extraction from historical documents at scale requires high-precision ground-truth annotations, yet traditional manual labeling is expensive and fully automated pipelines built on large language models are prone to hallucination. We propose Double Triangle Annotation, a two-layer human-in-the-loop framework that leverages cross-model consensus to automate the majority of annotation work while ensuring high-precision outputs. In the first layer, two architecturally independent Multimodal Large Language Models annotate each document in parallel; when they agree, the label is auto-accepted, and disagreements are routed to a human jury. A second layer cross-checks two such systems against each other, escalating residual conflicts to a domain expert. The framework rests on a single assumption -- error independence between models -- requires no distributional priors or task-specific calibration, and becomes more autonomous as model capability improves. On the Guides Rosenwald, a corpus of French medical directories spanning 1887-1906, the framework achieves a final Word Error Rate of 0.003. Applied at scale, model consensus auto-accepts over 85% of 13,595 fields. We release the resulting benchmark -- the first structured-extraction ground truth for the Rosenwald Guides -- to support future work on historical document processing.

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.

Many automated labeling pipelines classify inputs into categories defined by a written specification, content moderation being a prominent use case. Simple category definitions are not detailed enough for labelers to produce the accurate, consistent golden labels these pipelines require. One solution is to write a prescriptive definition that settles enough real boundary cases that labelers cannot disagree with the written interpretation. In practice, definitions at that level of detail exceed what a human annotator can hold in working memory, so annotators fall back on intuition and the labels drift from the written rules, regressing on accuracy and consistency. We propose and demonstrate the efficacy of an AI-driven workflow in which AI helps write a per-category constitution that defines the label in enough detail to cover edge cases, and a frontier LLM interprets it on each input to produce the golden label more consistently and accurately than humans reading the same document. We evaluate on three content moderation categories (harassment, hate speech, non-violent crime) and show that the approach reduces cross-model inconsistency by up to 57x compared to paragraph definitions, with cross-model disagreement diagnosing specification gaps and the human responsible for high-level decisions about what each category should mean rather than individual labeling calls. For the safety evaluation, we introduce a dual-axis formulation scoring intent and content independently over the full conversation, so downstream consumers can act on either axis or both.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance on zero-shot annotation tasks, they often struggle with the specialized conventions of gold-standard benchmarks. We propose the systematic reuse and refinement of annotation guidelines as an alignment mechanism, introducing an iterative moderation framework that simulates the early phases of annotation projects. We evaluate three hypotheses: (1) the efficacy of guideline integration, (2) the advantage of reasoning optimized models, and (3) the viability of moderation under minimal supervision. Testing across biomedical NER tasks (NCBI Disease, BC5CDR, BioRED) with three LLM families (GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek), our results empirically confirm all three hypotheses. While the iterative moderation framework shows good potential in effectively refining guidelines, our analysis also reveals substantial room for improvement.

Prompt optimization has often been framed as a discrete search problem to find high-performing and robust instructions for a large language model (LLM). However, the search result might not make it transparent why and where specific prompt changes lead to performance gains. This is in contrast to how humans are instructed for annotation tasks. Here, researchers carefully design annotation guidelines, leading to enhanced annotation consistency. Our paper aims at joining these two approaches and introduces iPOE, a novel interpretable prompt optimization strategy via explanations. We guide the prompt optimization process by automatically created guidelines from explanations of annotation decisions (either automatically generated or from humans). This set of guidelines is furthermore optimized by a series of operations, including removing, adding, shuffling, and merging. The resulting prompt includes guidelines that instruct the annotation, making the decision process of the LLM and the optimization transparent. It therefore supports also laypeople in prompt optimization. In our experiments on four datasets, we find that iPOE can improve over the evaluated baselines by up to 39% and LLM explanations can replace human explanations in the proposed method. Moreover, our interpretability validation study demonstrates that humans and LLMs substantially agree on which guidelines contribute to their annotations, achieving a Cohen's kappa score between annotators and LLMs of up to 0.68, 0.80, and 0.95 for the emotion classification, medical fact-checking, and hate speech detection tasks respectively.

Linguistic annotation of transcribed speech is essential for research in language acquisition, language disorders, and sociolinguistics, yet remains labor-intensive and time-consuming. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating annotation tasks, their ability to handle complex discourse-level annotation in non-English languages remains understudied. This study evaluates whether LLMs can reliably annotate narrative macrostructure-the hierarchical organization of story grammar elements-in spoken Mandarin, using the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) as a testbed. We compared four LLMs against trained human annotators on narratives produced by children, young adults, and older adults. The best-performing model achieved agreement with human raters (k=.794) approaching human-human reliability levels (k=.872) while reducing annotation time by 65%, whereas the locally deployable lightweight model performed substantially worse. Annotation difficulty varied systematically by macrostructure element type, with categories requiring subtle semantic differentiation posing persistent challenges. Furthermore, model reliability decreased on young adult narratives, which exhibited greater lexical variation, semantic ambiguity, and multi-element integration within single utterances. These findings suggest that LLMs can effectively support discourse-level annotation in non-English spoken corpora, while highlighting the continued need for human oversight in semantically complex tasks. Our prompt templates are open sourced for future use.

Scaling robot policy learning is bottlenecked by the cost of collecting demonstrations, while language annotations for existing demonstrations are comparatively cheap. We study language density as a lever for extracting more signal from a fixed robot or egocentric-video corpus. We introduce DeMiAn (Dense Multi-aspect Annotation), a two-stage approach that first re-labels demonstration segments with VLM-generated annotations along four complementary aspects: physical motion, scene composition, arm pose, and reasoning. A learned instructor then maps a task description and initial scene snapshot to a task-appropriate annotation at deployment, running asynchronously so generation latency is hidden behind policy execution. Across over 1M robot manipulation clips and 50K EgoVerse human-egocentric videos, DeMiAn improves both a vision-language-action policy and a video-based world-action model without collecting new demonstrations. On RoboCasa, the instructor raises success by 5 points over a task-only baseline and comes within 3 points of a per-task oracle. No fixed annotation aspect dominates across tasks, showing that selecting the right dense language matters. DeMiAn also improves composite-task and out-of-distribution performance, and shifts the compute-performance frontier in both mid-training and post-training after accounting for annotation-generation FLOPs. These results position dense re-annotation as a practical scaling lever for robot policy learning.

Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation, yet their effectiveness remains underexplored for underrepresented languages and specialized domains where the class definition requires subtle expert understanding. We investigate LLM-based annotation for a novel legal NLP task: identifying the presence and sentiment of credibility assessments in asylum decision texts. We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata such as annotator confidence and asylum case outcome. We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification. We zoom in on the errors made by top-performing models and prompts, investigating error consistency across LLMs, inter-class confusion, correlation with human confidence and sample-wise difficulty and severity of LLM mistakes. Our results confirm the potential of LLMs for cost-effective labeling of asylum decisions, but highlight the imperfect and inconsistent nature of LLM annotators, and the need to look beyond the predictions of a single, arbitrarily chosen model. The RAB-Cred dataset and code are available at https://github.com/glhr/RAB-Cred

LLM annotators are increasingly used in computational social science (CSS), but it is unclear whether their alignment-shaped errors preserve the empirical conclusions a researcher would report. We audit three open-source 7B instruction-tuned models (Zephyr, Mistral-Instruct, Qwen2.5-Instruct) across six TweetEval tasks under four prompt conditions (72 cells) and find that social-desirability failures do not run in a single direction. Zephyr exhibits leniency bias, systematically under-applying harmful labels (offensive language: false benign rate 0.729, false alarm rate 0.031). Mistral and Qwen exhibit overcorrection, over-applying the same labels (Mistral hate-speech FAR = 0.604). All three models exhibit neutrality bias on abortion stance, underestimating opposition prevalence by 24 to 40 percentage points and inflating the neutral label. None of the four prompting interventions we test (neutral, safety framing, depersonalized, chain-of-thought) corrects these failures across models; safety framing can worsen stance distortion. Strikingly, Zephyr's hate-speech prevalence estimate matches the gold rate exactly while its class-conditional errors are large in both directions, an accidental cancellation that misleads aggregate validation. We translate these patterns into a three-part taxonomy with diagnostic FBR/FAR signatures and a lightweight gold-sample validation protocol. The headline for trustworthy CSS: a model that looks calibrated on aggregate metrics can still flip the substantive empirical conclusion a researcher would report.

Hallucination remains a persistent challenge in Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in context-grounded settings such as RAG and agentic AI systems. This study focuses on contextual hallucination detection in summarization tasks. We analyze the QAGS-C and SummEval datasets by comparing original benchmark annotations with reason and span-based predictions from Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5 Mini. To address systematic divergences between human labels and LLM judgments, we re-evaluated all conflicted samples through a human adjudication process involving 2 cross-cultural adjudicators. Following this re-evaluation, triple agreement (between human, GPT, and Gemini) increased by 6.38% for QAGS-C and 7.62% for SummEval. Similarly, model accuracy improved, with GPT increasing by 4.25% on QAGS-C and 2.34% on SummEval, while Gemini showed gains of 8.51% and 3.80%, respectively. Notably, adjudicators frequently sided with the models' judgments over original human annotations when LLMs provided explicit reasoning. Overall human adjudicator agreement ranged between 83% and 87%. These findings suggest that for ambiguity-prone tasks, single-pass annotations may be insufficient, and model-assisted re-evaluation yields more reliable benchmarks.

Qualitative analysis plays a pivotal role in understanding the human and social aspects of software engineering. However, it remains a demanding process shaped by the subjective interpretation of individual researchers and sensitive to methodological choices such as prompt design. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities to support this type of analysis, although their reliability in reproducing human qualitative reasoning under varying prompting conditions remains largely untested. This study presents a controlled empirical evaluation of three LLMs -- Claude Haiku, DeepSeek-Chat, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across two prompt engineering strategies (zero-shot and multi-shot closed coding), using Cohen's kappa as the primary agreement metric over ten independent runs per configuration. Results suggest that multi-shot prompting significantly improves agreement for Claude Haiku (Delta kappa = +0.034, Wilcoxon p = 0.004) but not for DeepSeek-Chat or Gemini 2.5 Flash. Intra-model stability varies substantially -- DeepSeek-Chat and Claude Haiku exhibit the lowest variance (SD approx. 0.017), while Gemini 2.5 Flash is the least stable (SD = 0.038). A systematic over-prediction of "Sharing Negative Feedback" is identified across all models (bias ratios up to 5.25x), alongside consistent under-prediction of "Expressing Concerns." Collectively, these findings provide empirical evidence for prompt engineering guidelines in LLM-assisted qualitative coding for software engineering research.

Annotation automation via Large Language Models (LLMs) is the core approach for scaling NLP datasets; however, LLM behavior with respect to closed-set instructions in low-resource languages has not been well studied. We present MultiSoc-4D, a Bengali social media dataset benchmark, which contains 58K+ social media comments from six sources annotated along four dimensions: category, sentiment, hate speech, and sarcasm. By employing a structured pipeline where ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok individually annotate separate partitions, while sharing a common validation set of 20%, we diagnose LLM behavior systematically. We discover a prevalent phenomenon called "instruction-induced label collapse", wherein LLMs show a systematic preference towards fallback labels (Other, Neutral, No), leading to high agreement rates but under-detection of minority categories. For example, we find that LLMs failed to detect 79% and 75% of instances with hateful and sarcastic content compared to a human-calibrated reference. Furthermore, we prove that it represents a "label agreement illusion", statistically validated via almost null Fleiss' Kappa ($κ\approx -0.001$) on sarcasm detection. Across 40+ LLMs, we benchmark this annotation bias propagation within the training pipeline, regardless of architectural differences. We release MultiSoc-4D as a diagnostic benchmark for annotation biases in Bengali NLP.