Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation.
arXiv:2606.12186v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjec...
arXiv:2604. 13899v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances at low cost.
The paper examines how Preference Inference (PI) models used in large-scale participatory democracy platforms can alter the perceived consensus and minority support by predicting missing votes. It introduces a collective‑centric evaluation framework that assesses whether inferred votes maintain key properties of the overall preference landscape, rather than focusing solely on individual prediction accuracy. Using the largest multilingual dataset to date—four consultations with over 90,000 participants, 1 million votes, and 22 languages—the study finds that models with similar predictive accuracy can differ markedly in how well they preserve the collective structure, underscoring that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating PI in democratic contexts.
arXiv:2606. 30905v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Community Notes, a bridging-based crowd-sourced fact-checking system, has emerged as a new mechanism for moderating misleading information on social media and has been adopted by major platforms including X, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and TikTok.
arXiv:2604. 17289v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Supervised fine-tuning of large language models relies on human-annotated data, yet annotation pipelines routinely involve multiple crowdworkers of heterogeneous expertise.
arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.
Understanding moral values in social media text offers insight into moral judgement formation, and supervised NLP models trained on crowdsourced data have achieved strong classification performance. However, most approaches simplify the problem by aggregating multiple annotators' labels into a single "ground truth", overlooking the inherent subjectivity of the task.
arXiv:2609.15207v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before ele...
arXiv:2604.13899v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Annotating data remains a costly bottleneck for supervised NLP. Active learning (AL) reduces the number of human labels needed by selecting o...
arXiv:2511. 14117v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Supervised classifiers output a distribution over classes but are typically trained against a single label obtained by collapsing multiple annotators into a majority vote.
The paper "Limits of LLM Text Detectors in Education" argues that existing LLM‑generated text detectors assume a binary human/LLM distinction, which fails to capture realistic student‑AI collaboration. It introduces a contribution‑aware evaluation framework with eight student contribution levels and presents GEDE, a benchmark of over 900 human‑written and 12,500 generated essays across 886 tasks. Using GEDE, the authors evaluate four detection methods and find that most detectors perform poorly on intermediate contribution levels, especially LLM‑assisted revisions, raising concerns about false accusations.