From Noise to Signal to Selbstzweck: Reframing Human Label Variation in the Era of Post-training in NLP
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Human Label Variation (HLV) refers to legitimate disagreement in annotation that reflects the diversity of human perspectives rather than mere error. Long treated in NLP as noise to be eliminated, HLV has only recently been reframed as a signal for improving model robustness. With the rise of large language models (LLMs) and post-training methods such as human feedback-based alignment, the role of HLV has become increasingly consequential. Yet current preference-learning datasets routinely collapse multiple annotations into a single label, flattening diverse perspectives into artificial consensus. Preserving HLV is necessary not only for pluralistic alignment but also for sociotechnical safety evaluation, where model behavior must be assessed in relation to human interaction and societal context. This position paper argues that preserving HLV as an embodiment of human pluralism must be treated as a Selbstzweck, an intrinsic value in itself. We analyze the limitations of existing preference datasets and propose actionable strategies for incorporating HLV into dataset construction to better preserve pluralistic human values.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 38 of its 72 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2025.
Builds on
38 of 72 references.
References · 38
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2023Large Language Modelscited by 780
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
- 2020GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotionscited by 486
- 2023Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Modelscited by 437
- 2023Personalized Soups: Personalized Large Language Model Alignment via Post-hoc Parameter Mergingcited by 280
- 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 264
- 2024HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward modelscited by 236
- 2022Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: An Evaluation by Industry Professionalscited by 191
- 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
26 more
- 2017Automatic Detection of Fake Newscited by 145
- 2022The 'Problem' of Human Label Variation: On Ground Truth in Data, Modeling and Evaluationcited by 139
- 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 126
- 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
- 2024Hidden Persuaders: LLMs' Political Leaning and Their Influence on Voterscited by 71
- 2024PAL: Pluralistic Alignment Framework for Learning from Heterogeneous Preferencescited by 54
- 2024Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?cited by 47
- 2024VariErr NLI: Separating Annotation Error from Human Label Variationcited by 42
- 2021A Survey on Interactive Reinforcement Learning: Design Principles and Open Challengescited by 41
- 2025Value Profiles for Encoding Human Variationcited by 29
- 2024Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedbackcited by 26
- 2018The Externalities of Exploration and How Data Diversity Helps Exploitationcited by 20
- 2023From Dissonance to Insights: Dissecting Disagreements in Rationale Construction for Case Outcome Classificationcited by 14
- 2024Position: Insights from Survey Methodology can Improve Training Datacited by 13
- 2024STAR: SocioTechnical Approach to Red Teaming Language Modelscited by 13
- 2020Competence-Level Prediction and Resume & Job Description Matching Using Context-Aware Transformer Modelscited by 11
- 2025Projection Optimization: A General Framework for Multi-Objective and Multi-Group RLHFcited by 11
- 2024Through the Lens of Split Vote: Exploring Disagreement, Difficulty and Calibration in Legal Case Outcome Classificationcited by 9
- 2025Reward Learning from Multiple Feedback Typescited by 9
- 2024On Extending Direct Preference Optimization to Accommodate Tiescited by 8
- 2025Conversational AI increases political knowledge as effectively as self-directed internet searchcited by 8
- 2025What Is The Political Content in LLMs' Pre- and Post-Training Data?cited by 7
- 2023Understanding and Predicting Human Label Variation in Natural Language Inference through Explanationcited by 5
- 2023Establishing Trustworthiness: Rethinking Tasks and Model Evaluationcited by 4
- 2025Decoding Alignment: A Critical Survey of LLM Development Initiatives through Value-setting and Data-centric Lenscited by 3
- 2025Better Aligned with Survey Respondents or Training Data? Unveiling Political Leanings of LLMs on U.S. Supreme Court Casescited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026LLMs Capture Emotion Labels, Not Emotion Uncertainty: Distributional Analysis and Calibration of Human-LLM Judgment Gapscited by 4
- 2026Learning Who Disagrees: Demographic Importance Weighting for Modeling Annotator Distributions with DiADEMcited by 0
- 2026LP-Eval: Rubric and Dataset for Measuring the Quality of Legal Proposition Generationcited by 0
- 2026LP-Eval: Rubric and Dataset for Measuring the Quality of Legal Proposition Generation19 May 2026
- 2026LLMs Capture Emotion Labels, Not Emotion Uncertainty: Distributional Analysis and Calibration of Human-LLM Judgment Gaps30 Apr 2026
- 2026Learning Who Disagrees: Demographic Importance Weighting for Modeling Annotator Distributions with DiADEM9 Apr 2026