AI-Powered Annotation Pipelines for Stabilizing Large Language Models: A Human-AI Synergy Approach
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM implementations are failing in highly regulated industries owing to instability issues, inconsistent reasoning, hallucinations and performance variability, especially in workflows. These reliability issues restrict safe use of LLM in areas that need the precision of facts and consistent behavior (Aiyappa et al., 2023). The current methods of stabilization, such as, reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) and supervised fine-tuning, offer quantifiable improvements but are expensive and based on the intensive annotation of humans, thus being not easily scaled in a sustainable way (Dong et al., 2023; Retzlaff et al., 2024). This paper presents an AI-based annotation pipeline that systematically identifies, labels, and fixes for instability patterns on LLM output. Our human-AI synergy method combines the models of automated weak supervision and confidence-based annotation with the target human validation to guarantee the reliability and moral uprightness of feedback information (Cabitza et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2023). The semantic consistency, factual correctness, and logical coherence categories of stability-specific annotation are introduced into our framework, allowing the continuous calibration of models and the enhancement of their robustness based on the feedback loops (Honovich et al., 2021; Nan et al., 2021).
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Dec 2025.
Builds on
10 of 33 references.
References · 10
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 812
- 2023SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHFcited by 111
- 2023Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 70
- 2023Can we trust the evaluation on ChatGPT?cited by 63
- 2021Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answeringcited by 55
- 2021Factual Consistency Evaluation for Text Summarization via Counterfactual Estimationcited by 37
- 2023Improving Human-AI Collaboration With Descriptions of AI Behaviorcited by 36
- 2021Logic-Consistency Text Generation from Semantic Parsescited by 23
- 2022Structured Like a Language Model: Analysing AI as an Automated Subjectcited by 6
- 2021New Methods & Metrics for LFQA taskscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025RLTHF: Targeted Human Feedback for LLM Alignment
- 2025Can Reasoning Help Large Language Models Capture Human Annotator Disagreement?
- 2025Evaluating LLMs Without Oracle Feedback: Agentic Annotation Evaluation Through Unsupervised Consistency Signals
- 2026Auditing Automated Evaluation, Error Propagation, and Runtime Mitigation in Tool-Using Language Agents
- 2024Aligning Large Language Models via Fine-grained Supervision
- 2025Refining Positive and Toxic Samples for Dual Safety Self-Alignment of LLMs with Minimal Human Interventions
- 2025How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators
- 2024Improving the Robustness of Large Language Models via Consistency Alignment