IDEAlign introduces a new protocol for evaluating the similarity of large language model (LLM) annotations to expert judgments. It uses pick‑the‑odd‑one‑out tasks to capture expert similarity and benchmarks various similarity methods—including text embeddings, topic models, and LLM-as-a-judge—against these human ratings. Applied to educational datasets, the study finds that most metrics miss nuanced expert dimensions, with LLM-as-a-judge performing best yet still insufficient for full expert alignment.
By Hyunji Nam, Lucia Langlois, James Malamut, Mei Tan, Dorottya Demszky
arXiv:2605.24981v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Choosing a Large Language Model (LLM) for a given task requires comparing many strong candidates, yet standard evaluation relies on costly annotati...
By Yavuz Durmazkeser, Patrik Okanovic, Andreas Kirsch, Torsten Hoefler, Nezihe Merve G\"urel
Crowdsourced labeling provides valuable labeled data for domains across natural language processing, computer vision, and video. Label aggregation aims to infer latent true labels from noisy and biased annotations, with the key lying in annotator reliability estimation.
The study trains ten open‑weight large language models (LLMs) to predict their own accuracy on factual multiple‑choice questions before answering. Results show that the models’ confidence signals split into two distinct patterns: early in training, confidence aligns with output consistency (how concentrated the answer distribution is), while later, it aligns with true accuracy but only on data similar to the training set. This indicates that calibration training may not universally teach LLMs to detect their own errors.
By Nicolas Yax, Stefano Palminteri, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer
arXiv:2607. 18465v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Crowdsourced labeling provides valuable labeled data for domains across natural language processing, computer vision, and video.
By Ju Chen, Sijia Xu, Jun Feng, Zhiqiang Gao, Zhengyi Yang
The paper investigates whether large language models can learn and reproduce annotator‑specific label‑explanation behavior, using two sentence‑pair tasks with four annotators each. It finds that individual annotator patterns are weak at the single‑annotation level but become detectable after reducing input‑content effects and aggregating across annotators. The authors propose cross‑annotator preference optimization (CAPO), which improves upon prompting and supervised fine‑tuning by better capturing annotator‑specific reasoning while maintaining stable attribution.
By Beiduo Chen, Pingjun Hong, Ziyun Zhang, Benjamin Roth, Anna Korhonen, Barbara Plank