arXiv (All)
open access
Multi-Perspective LLM Annotations for Valid Analyses in Subjective Tasks
Large language models are increasingly used to annotate texts, but their outputs reflect some human perspectives better than others. Existing methods for correcting LLM annotation error assume a single ground truth. However, this assumption fails in subjective tasks where disagreement across demogra
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Beyond majority voting : agreement-based clustering to model annotator perspectives in subjective NLP tasks#681071
- Can We Trust the Judges? Validation of Factuality Evaluation Methods via Answer Perturbation#1109553
- Evaluating the Capabilities of LLMs for Persuasive Dialogue#798369
- Evaluating the Capabilities of LLMs for Persuasive Dialogue#796956
- Human-Anchored Factuality Evaluation with Strategic Annotation#819938
Record · ID 1155151
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive