Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.15638 v1 pith:JEKWLGBA submitted 2023-10-24 cs.CL

CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation

classification cs.CL
keywords llmsannotationcoannotatingmodelsworklanguageannotatorscapability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Annotated data plays a critical role in Natural Language Processing (NLP) in training models and evaluating their performance. Given recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs), models such as ChatGPT demonstrate zero-shot capability on many text-annotation tasks, comparable with or even exceeding human annotators. Such LLMs can serve as alternatives for manual annotation, due to lower costs and higher scalability. However, limited work has leveraged LLMs as complementary annotators, nor explored how annotation work is best allocated among humans and LLMs to achieve both quality and cost objectives. We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Under this framework, we utilize uncertainty to estimate LLMs' annotation capability. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline. For code implementation, see https://github.com/SALT-NLP/CoAnnotating.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AnnotateThis: Analyzing a human-LLM system for annotating social media data with the concept of climate change mitigation pessimism

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AnnotateThis lets users improve LLM annotations for climate change mitigation pessimism on social media, yielding 0.15 higher F-Measure and 0.23 higher accuracy than automated prompt refinement when ground truth label...

  2. Value-Sensitive AI for Prayer: Balancing the Agencies Between Human and AI Agents in Spiritual Context

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AI systems risk reducing the perceived authenticity of prayer when they take too much guiding agency, so designs should preserve user agency through interpretive openness or allow non-use.

  3. Towards Large Reasoning Models: A Survey of Reinforced Reasoning with Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-01 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    The paper surveys reinforced reasoning techniques for LLMs, covering automated data construction, learning-to-reason methods, and test-time scaling as steps toward Large Reasoning Models.