Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process, particularly for detecting label errors in existing datasets. |
| Approach: | They propose to use an ensemble of large language models to flag mislabeled examples by using an LLM-as-a-judge approach to detect label errors in existing datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves label accuracy and consistency in large language models. |
Similar Papers
LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks (2025.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Desmond Elliott, Raquel Fernández, Albert Gatt, Esam Ghaleb, Mario Giulianelli, Michael Hanna, Alexander Koller, Andre Martins, Philipp Mondorf, Vera Neplenbroek, Sandro Pezzelle, Barbara Plank, David Schlangen, Alessandro Suglia, Aditya K Surikuchi, Ece Takmaz, Alberto Testoni
| Challenge: | Existing evaluations of NLP models with LLMs are based on human judgments . however, there are concerns about their validity and reproducibility in proprietary models . |
| Approach: | They evaluate 11 current LLMs for their ability to replicate annotations. they show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can replicate human annotations on 20 NLP datasets and show substantial variance across models and datasets. |
The Promises and Pitfalls of LLM Annotations in Dataset Labeling: a Case Study on Media Bias Detection (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
Tomáš Horych, Christoph Mandl, Terry Ruas, Andre Greiner-Petter, Bela Gipp, Akiko Aizawa, Timo Spinde
| Challenge: | Recent research suggests using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the annotation process, reducing these costs while maintaining data quality. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models to automate annotation process and train classifiers on large datasets. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms all of the annotator LLMs on two media bias benchmark datasets (BABE and BASIL) while maintaining data quality. |
NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmark (2023.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for evaluating large language models using annotated benchmarks are in trouble . data contamination can cause wrong scientific conclusions being published . |
| Approach: | They argue that the evaluation of NLP tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble . they define different levels of data contamination and propose a community effort . |
| Outcome: | The proposed measures should detect when data from a benchmark was exposed to a model and flag papers with conclusions compromised by data contamination. |
In Benchmarks We Trust ... Or Not? (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Ine Gevers, Victor De Marez, Jens Van Nooten, Jens Lemmens, Andriy Kosar, Ehsan Lotfi, Nikolay Banar, Pieter Fivez, Luna De Bruyne, Walter Daelemans
| Challenge: | Existing benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) are inadequate and lack a clear solution. |
| Approach: | They propose checklists to cover all aspects of benchmarking issues, both for benchmark creation and usage. |
| Outcome: | The proposed checklists cover all aspects of benchmarking issues, both for benchmark creation and usage. |
Are Large Language Model-based Evaluators the Solution to Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation? (2024.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
Rishav Hada, Varun Gumma, Adrian Wynter, Harshita Diddee, Mohamed Ahmed, Monojit Choudhury, Kalika Bali, Sunayana Sitaram
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various tasks, but their evaluation, especially in languages beyond the top 20, remains inadequate due to existing benchmarks and metrics limitations. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models as evaluators to rank or score other models’ outputs by calibrating them against 20K human judgments across three text-generation tasks, five metrics, and eight languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation methods can be used to improve multilingual evaluation by calibrating them against 20K human judgments across three text-generation tasks, five metrics, and eight languages. |
LLM-Powered Benchmark Factory: Reliable, Generic, and Efficient (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Peiwen Yuan, Shaoxiong Feng, Yiwei Li, Xinglin Wang, Yueqi Zhang, Jiayi Shi, Chuyi Tan, Boyuan Pan, Yao Hu, Kan Li
| Challenge: | Using generic and efficient benchmark generators, human annotators are limited by inefficiency . current benchmark generator methods rely on seed signals, leading to long cycles and high costs . |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to evaluate LLMs as generic benchmark generators and integrate them as BenchMaker. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework achieves comparable performance to human-annotated benchmarks on most metrics. |
MEGAnno+: A Human-LLM Collaborative Annotation System (2024.eacl-demo)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) can label data faster and cheaper than humans . however, they may fall short in understanding of complex contexts, leading to incorrect labels . |
| Approach: | They propose a collaborative approach where humans and LLMs work together to produce reliable labels. |
| Outcome: | The proposed system can produce reliable and high-quality labels faster and cheaper than humans . compared to traditional models, it can generate labels faster, at a lower cost . |
Measuring What Matters: Evaluating Ensemble LLMs with Label Refinement in Inductive Coding (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are prone to inconsistencies and individual biases, limiting their reliability. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that combines ensemble methods with code refinement methodology to address these challenges. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework outperforms large language models and LLMs with a low-rank averaging and a moderator-based mechanism to simulate human consensus. |
How Reliable is Multilingual LLM-as-a-Judge? (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | LLMs are a popular evaluation strategy, but their reliability in multilingual evaluation remains uncertain. |
| Approach: | They evaluate five models from different model families across five diverse tasks involving 25 languages. |
| Outcome: | The models perform poorly across languages and average Fleiss’ Kappa is 0.3 . |
Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work uses large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language process tasks, but there are shortcomings in current LLMs. |
| Approach: | They examine the alignment between LLM evaluators and human annotators by comparing conventional and alignment tasks with different evaluation criteria. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models excel in general criteria, such as fluency, but face challenges with complex criteria, including numerical reasoning. |