arXiv Computation and Language

Activating the Annotator: Operationalising Lived Experience in Data Annotation

arXiv AI
Jun 2

Who Annotates in NLP? A Large-scale Assessment of Human Annotation Reporting between 2018 and 2025

arXiv:2606. 02255v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled.

By Maria Kunilovskaya, Gagan Bhatia, Lisa Sophie Albertelli, Yanran Chen, Christian Greisinger, Lotta Kiefer, Christoph Leiter, Subhadeep Roy, Tewodros Achamaleh, Muhammad Arslan Manzoor, Sebastian Pohl, Yufang Hou, Steffen Eger
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 17

Which Demographics do LLMs Default to During Annotation?

The paper investigates which demographic attributes large language models (LLMs) default to when annotating text without explicit demographic cues. By comparing non‑demographic, placebo‑conditioned, and demographic‑conditioned prompts on politeness and offensiveness tasks in the POPQUORN dataset, the authors find that LLMs exhibit notable gender, race, and age influences in their annotations. This contrasts with earlier studies that reported no such effects, highlighting the importance of considering demographic bias in LLM‑based annotation workflows.

By Johannes Sch\"afer, Aidan Combs, Christopher Bagdon, Jiahui Li, Nadine Probol, Lynn Greschner, Sean Papay, Yarik Menchaca Resendiz, Aswathy Velutharambath, Amelie W\"uhrl, Sabine Weber, Roman Klinger
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 12

Automated Data Enrichment using Confidence-Aware Fine-Grained Debate among Open-Source LLMs for Mental Health and Online Safety

arXiv:2512. 06227v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world indicators play an important role in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, such as life events for mental health analysis and risky behaviours for online safety, yet labelling such information is often costly and/or difficult due to its multi-label and dynamic nature.

By Junyu Mao, Anthony Hills, Talia Tseriotou, Maria Liakata, Aya Shamir, Dan Sayda, Dana Atzil-Slonim, Natalie Djohari, Pamela Ugwudike, Mahesan Niranjan, Stuart E. Middleton
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 10

Who Argues What? Joint Argument-Entity Detection and Classification in Political Debates

The paper introduces DNE‑ElecDeb, an enriched version of the USElecDeb dataset that annotates Debate Named Entities (DNEs) in both argumentative and non‑argumentative spans, and defines Debate Named Entity Recognition (DNER) as a new task. It proposes Joint Argument and Entity Tagging (JAET), a generative framework that fine‑tunes decoder‑only LLMs to insert inline argument and entity tags into debate turns while preserving the original transcript. JAET achieves significant improvements in joint AM+DNER performance (+27.3% relative F1 in the untyped setting and +41.9% in the typed setting) over sequential pipelines, and these gains generalize to Persuasive Essays (+26.6% and +52.7%).

By Lucio La Cava, Stefano Francesco Monea, Sergio Greco