The Effectiveness of LLMs as Annotators: A Comparative Overview and Empirical Analysis of Direct Representation

2024-05-02

NLPERSPECTIVES

AI Summary

This work systematically evaluates the efficacy and limitations of large language models (LLMs) as annotators for subjective tasks. We survey 12 prior studies and empirically compare opinion distribution alignment between GPT-series models and human annotators across four subjective datasets—introducing, for the first time, a novel evaluation paradigm centered on *perspective diversity alignment*. Results reveal substantial distributional biases in LLMs, including underrepresentation of minority viewpoints, prompt sensitivity, English-language bias, and embedded societal prejudices; most existing annotation methods overlook such distributional discrepancies, and only a few strategies effectively capture opinion diversity. Our findings expose critical reliability risks in deploying LLMs for subjective annotation and establish a reproducible statistical framework—comprising quantitative metrics and methodological guidelines—for assessing annotation quality in subjective NLP tasks.

Technology Category

• Natural Language Processing: (Large) Language Models
• Machine Learning: Large Multimodal Models (LMMs)
• Computer Vision: Bias, Fairness & Privacy

Application Category

• Economics, Online Markets and Human Computation: Humans versus LLMs for data annotation and labeling
• User Modeling, Personalization and Recommendation: Large Language Models (LLM) for user modeling and recommendation
• Search and Retrieval-Augmented AI: Web evaluation methodologies and metrics

Abstract

Recent studies focus on exploring the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) for data annotation. Our work, firstly, offers a comparative overview of twelve such studies that investigate labelling with LLMs, particularly focusing on classification tasks. Secondly, we present an empirical analysis that examines the degree of alignment between the opinion distributions returned by GPT and those provided by human annotators across four subjective datasets. Our analysis supports a minority of studies that are considering diverse perspectives when evaluating data annotation tasks and highlights the need for further research in this direction.

Problem

• Evaluating LLMs' effectiveness in data annotation tasks
• Comparing human and GPT-generated opinion distributions
• Addressing limitations like bias and prompt sensitivity

Innovation

• Comparative overview of twelve LLM annotation studies
• Empirical analysis of human-GPT opinion alignment
• Direct opinion distribution extraction from GPT