From Noise to Signal to Selbstzweck: Reframing Human Label Variation in the Era of Post-training in NLP

Barbara Plank; Santosh T.Y.S.S; Shanshan Xu

arxiv: 2510.12817 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-09 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.CY

From Noise to Signal to Selbstzweck: Reframing Human Label Variation in the Era of Post-training in NLP

Shanshan Xu , Santosh T.Y.S.S , Barbara Plank This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

keywords Human Label VariationPreference LearningPluralistic AlignmentPost-trainingAnnotation DisagreementSociotechnical SafetySelfzweckNLP Datasets

0 comments

The pith

Preserving human label variation must be treated as an intrinsic value for pluralistic alignment in large language models.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper claims that legitimate disagreements among human annotators, known as human label variation, should no longer be discarded or reduced to single consensus labels in datasets used for post-training language models. Instead, these disagreements embody real differences in human perspectives that current preference-learning methods erase by forcing artificial agreement. If this variation is kept intact, models can align with a wider range of values and safety assessments can better capture how systems interact with diverse people and contexts. The authors review the shortcomings of existing datasets and outline practical steps for building new ones that retain multiple annotations rather than collapsing them.

Core claim

In the shift from treating human label variation first as noise and then as a signal for robustness, the paper establishes that this variation must now be upheld as Selbstzweck, an end in itself, because routinely reducing multiple annotations to one label in preference datasets removes the pluralism required for effective alignment and sociotechnical safety evaluation of large language models.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the reframing of human label variation as an embodiment of human pluralism whose preservation in preference-learning datasets serves as an intrinsic value rather than a means to other ends.

If this is right

Preference datasets that retain multiple annotations will allow models to represent a broader range of human values during alignment.
Safety evaluations will more accurately reflect model behavior across varied societal contexts rather than against artificial consensus.
Dataset construction practices can shift toward methods that record and keep annotator disagreements instead of resolving them early.
Post-training pipelines will need new techniques to incorporate variation without increasing computational cost.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

This stance implies that evaluation benchmarks should include test cases drawn from real annotation disagreements rather than gold-standard single labels.
One extension would be to examine whether preserving variation changes how models respond to inputs from underrepresented demographic groups.
A practical test could involve releasing a small preference dataset with explicit multi-annotation labels and measuring downstream effects on model outputs.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that collapsing multiple annotations into single labels in preference datasets necessarily erases valuable diversity of perspectives in ways that harm pluralistic alignment and safety evaluation.

What would settle it

An experiment that trains otherwise identical models on preference data with collapsed labels versus preserved multiple annotations and then measures no meaningful difference in their ability to handle conflicting user values or in safety-related evaluations would falsify the central claim.

read the original abstract

Human Label Variation (HLV) refers to legitimate disagreement in annotation that reflects the diversity of human perspectives rather than mere error. Long treated in NLP as noise to be eliminated, HLV has only recently been reframed as a signal for improving model robustness. With the rise of large language models (LLMs) and post-training methods such as human feedback-based alignment, the role of HLV has become increasingly consequential. Yet current preference-learning datasets routinely collapse multiple annotations into a single label, flattening diverse perspectives into artificial consensus. Preserving HLV is necessary not only for pluralistic alignment but also for sociotechnical safety evaluation, where model behavior must be assessed in relation to human interaction and societal context. This position paper argues that preserving HLV as an embodiment of human pluralism must be treated as a Selbstzweck, an intrinsic value in itself. We analyze the limitations of existing preference datasets and propose actionable strategies for incorporating HLV into dataset construction to better preserve pluralistic human values.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a position paper arguing to treat human label variation as an intrinsic value worth preserving in post-training preference data, but it offers no empirical tests of the claim.

read the letter

The core takeaway is that current preference datasets flatten multiple human annotations into single labels, and the authors want this stopped because preserving the variation embodies pluralism that matters for alignment and safety. They frame it as Selbstzweck—an end in itself—rather than just another robustness trick. That extension from earlier HLV-as-signal work is the main move here, and it lands as a direct critique of how post-training data gets built today.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This position paper reframes Human Label Variation (HLV) in NLP annotations from noise to be eliminated, to a useful signal, and ultimately to an intrinsic value ('Selbstzweck') that embodies human pluralism. In the context of post-training and preference-based alignment of LLMs, it argues that routinely collapsing multiple annotations into single labels in preference datasets flattens diverse perspectives, which undermines pluralistic alignment and sociotechnical safety evaluation. The authors analyze limitations of existing datasets and propose strategies for preserving HLV in dataset construction.

Significance. If the normative argument holds, the paper could influence dataset practices in RLHF and alignment research by encouraging retention of annotation disagreement rather than aggregation. This has potential to support more pluralistic models and better safety assessments tied to human diversity. The conceptual reframing is a strength, though the absence of empirical validation or concrete dataset examples limits immediate applicability.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that collapsing multiple annotations into single labels 'flattens diverse perspectives' and harms pluralistic alignment rests on the weakest assumption identified in the review; without citing specific preference datasets (e.g., those used in current post-training pipelines) or showing how this flattening occurs in practice, the normative conclusion that preservation must be treated as a Selbstzweck lacks load-bearing support.
[Analysis of existing preference datasets] The section analyzing limitations of existing preference datasets: the discussion remains at a high level without quantitative or qualitative evidence of how often or in what manner HLV is discarded, which weakens the call for actionable changes in dataset construction.

minor comments (2)

The introduction of the philosophical term 'Selbstzweck' would benefit from a brief definition or reference on first use to improve accessibility for an NLP audience.
The proposed strategies for incorporating HLV should be expanded with at least one concrete example of dataset construction or annotation protocol to make the recommendations more actionable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and the recommendation for minor revision. The comments highlight opportunities to strengthen the grounding of our normative claims with more concrete references, which we will incorporate while preserving the position paper's conceptual focus.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that collapsing multiple annotations into single labels 'flattens diverse perspectives' and harms pluralistic alignment rests on the weakest assumption identified in the review; without citing specific preference datasets (e.g., those used in current post-training pipelines) or showing how this flattening occurs in practice, the normative conclusion that preservation must be treated as a Selbstzweck lacks load-bearing support.

Authors: We agree that explicit references to current post-training datasets would provide stronger load-bearing support for the claim. In the revised manuscript, we will add citations to specific examples such as the Anthropic HH-RLHF dataset and OpenAI preference collections used in models like GPT-4, where multiple annotator judgments are routinely aggregated via majority vote or single-label selection into preferred/rejected pairs. This will illustrate the flattening mechanism in practice and better substantiate the argument for treating HLV preservation as a Selbstzweck. revision: yes
Referee: [Analysis of existing preference datasets] The section analyzing limitations of existing preference datasets: the discussion remains at a high level without quantitative or qualitative evidence of how often or in what manner HLV is discarded, which weakens the call for actionable changes in dataset construction.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current discussion is high-level. As this is a position paper, the primary aim is conceptual reframing rather than new empirical measurement. However, we will partially revise the section to include qualitative examples from documented RLHF practices (e.g., aggregation methods described in Llama-2 and Mistral alignment reports) and outline concrete strategies for retaining annotation distributions. This provides additional substance to support actionable changes without requiring new quantitative experiments. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper is a normative position paper whose central claim—that preserving Human Label Variation must be treated as a Selbstzweck for pluralistic alignment—rests on explicit value judgments about human pluralism rather than any formal derivation, fitted parameters, or equations. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-definition, self-citation chains, or renamed empirical patterns; the analysis of preference datasets is descriptive and the proposed strategies are prescriptive recommendations. The argument is self-contained against external benchmarks of pluralism and safety evaluation, with no internal reduction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that human pluralism is inherently valuable and that technical dataset practices should reflect this without requiring performance-based justification; this is a domain assumption rather than a derived result.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Human Label Variation reflects legitimate disagreement arising from diversity of human perspectives rather than mere annotation error.
This definition is given at the start of the abstract and underpins the entire reframing.
domain assumption Current preference-learning datasets routinely collapse multiple annotations into a single label.
Stated as standard practice whose consequences the paper seeks to address.

invented entities (1)

Selbstzweck framing for HLV preservation no independent evidence
purpose: To position the retention of label variation as an intrinsic good independent of its instrumental value as noise or signal.
The term is introduced to elevate the status of preservation beyond utility arguments for robustness or safety.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5716 in / 1457 out tokens · 62812 ms · 2026-05-18T08:30:18.738343+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Preserving HLV as an embodiment of human pluralism must be treated as a Selbstzweck, an intrinsic value in itself.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

current preference-learning datasets routinely collapse multiple annotations into a single label

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

LP-Eval: Rubric and Dataset for Measuring the Quality of Legal Proposition Generation
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

LP-Eval is a new expert-co-designed rubric and annotated dataset showing that LLMs mostly produce well-formed legal propositions from EU court decisions, with higher expert-rated quality for established cases and impr...