mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ARTICLE: Annotator Reliability Through In-Context Learning

arXiv 2409.12218 ↗First posted 18 Sep 2024cs.CL cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Ensuring annotator quality in training and evaluation data is a key piece of machine learning in NLP. Tasks such as sentiment analysis and offensive speech detection are intrinsically subjective, creating a challenging scenario for traditional quality assessment approaches because it is hard to distinguish disagreement due to poor work from that due to differences of opinions between sincere annotators. With the goal of increasing diverse perspectives in annotation while ensuring consistency, we propose textttARTICLE, an in-context learning (ICL) framework to estimate annotation quality through self-consistency. We evaluate this framework on two offensive speech datasets using multiple LLMs and compare its performance with traditional methods. Our findings indicate that textttARTICLE can be used as a robust method for identifying reliable annotators, hence improving data quality.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Sep 2024.

Builds on

20 of 34 references.

References · 20

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  3. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  4. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
  5. 2022Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?cited by 1,434
  6. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  7. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
  8. 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
  9. 2021MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document contextcited by 143
  10. 2022Picking on the Same Person: Does Algorithmic Monoculture lead to Outcome Homogenization?cited by 91
  11. 2021Agreeing to Disagree: Annotating Offensive Language Datasets with Annotators' Disagreementcited by 72
  12. 2021Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectivescited by 65
8 more
  1. 2023You Are What You Annotate: Towards Better Models through Annotator Representationscited by 40
  2. 2024If in a Crowdsourced Data Annotation Pipeline, a GPT-4cited by 38
  3. 2023Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classificationcited by 32
  4. 2022Investigating Reasons for Disagreement in Natural Language Inferencecited by 29
  5. 2018CrowdTruth 2.0: Quality Metrics for Crowdsourcing with Disagreementcited by 27
  6. 2021Learning from Crowds with Crowd-Kitcited by 24
  7. 2023Incorporating Worker Perspectives into MTurk Annotation Practices for NLPcited by 18
  8. 2023Vicarious Offense and Noise Audit of Offensive Speech Classifiers: Unifying Human and Machine Disagreement on What is Offensivecited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Decomposing and Predicting Annotation Disagreement in Harmful Content Across Languages
  2. 2025How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators
  3. 2025Evaluating LLMs Without Oracle Feedback: Agentic Annotation Evaluation Through Unsupervised Consistency Signals
  4. 2025LLMs as Data Annotators: How Close Are We to Human Performance
  5. 2025Is LLM an Overconfident Judge? Unveiling the Capabilities of LLMs in Detecting Offensive Language with Annotation Disagreement
  6. 2026More Human, More Efficient: Aligning Annotations with Quantized SLMs
  7. 2022Selective Annotation Makes Language Models Better Few-Shot Learners
  8. 2025Can External Validation Tools Improve Annotation Quality for LLM-as-a-Judge?