Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets for Large Language Model Data Annotation: A Novel Approach to Side-by-Side Preference Labeling
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
The quality of human preference data is crucial for training and evaluating large language models (LLMs), particularly in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and direct preference optimization (DPO) scenarios. Traditional side-by-side (SBS) annotation approaches often struggle with inherent uncertainty, annotator disagreement, and the complexity of preference judgments. This paper introduces a novel framework based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS) for modeling and aggregating human preferences in LLM data annotation tasks. Our approach captures not only the degree of preference but also the uncertainty and hesitation inherent in human judgment through membership, non-membership, and hesitation degrees. We propose an IFS-based annotation protocol that enables more nuanced preference modeling, develops aggregation methods for handling annotator disagreement, and introduces quality metrics for preference data assessment. Experimental validation on multiple datasets demonstrates that our IFS-based approach significantly improves annotation consistency, reduces annotator fatigue, and produces higher-quality preference data compared to traditional binary and Likert-scale methods. The resulting preference datasets lead to improved model performance in downstream tasks, with 12.3% improvement in win-rate against baseline models and 15.7% reduction in annotation time. Our framework provides a principled approach to handling uncertainty in human preference annotation and offers practical benefits for large-scale LLM training.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 9 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2025.
Builds on
9 of 18 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 8
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
- 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modelingcited by 499
- 2021Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Informationcited by 291
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2022Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Modelscited by 118
- 2018Can Neural Machine Translation be Improved with User Feedback?cited by 72
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators
- 2024Annotation-Efficient Language Model Alignment via Diverse and Representative Response Texts
- 2024Data-Centric Human Preference with Rationales for Direct Preference Alignment
- 2024Spread Preference Annotation: Direct Preference Judgment for Efficient LLM Alignment
- 2024Direct Preference Optimization With Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity: The Necessity of Ternary Preferences
- 2025Direct Preference Optimization with Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity: The Necessity of Ternary Preferences
- 2024Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedback
- 2025Difficulty-Based Preference Data Selection by DPO Implicit Reward Gap