# More Human, More Efficient: Aligning Annotations with Quantized SLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00586 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.00586/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00547/) (2020)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10669/) (2024)
- [Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11695/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models for Data Annotation and Synthesis: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13446/) (2024)
- [A Comprehensive Survey of Small Language Models in the Era of Large Language Models: Techniques, Enhancements, Applications, Collaboration with LLMs, and Trustworthiness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03350/) (2024)
- [An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge for LLM Evaluation: Fine-tuned Judge Model is not a General Substitute for GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02839/) (2024)
- [OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.06551/) (2024)
- [The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10970/) (2025)
- [RankME: Reliable Human Ratings for Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05928/) (2018)
- [Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06193/) (2025)
- [LoRA Dropout as a Sparsity Regularizer for Overfitting Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.09610/) (2024)
- [Enhancing elusive clues in knowledge learning by contrasting attention of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.17954/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities advance, the demand for high-quality annotation of exponentially increasing text corpora has outpaced human capacity, leading to the widespread adoption of LLMs in automatic evaluation and annotation. However, proprietary LLMs often exhibit systematic biases that diverge from human expert consensus, lacks reproducibility, and raises data privacy concerns. Our work examines the viability of finetuning a quantized Small Language Model of 1.7B parameter size on limited human-annotated data to serve as a highly aligned, deterministic evaluator and annotator. By implementing a custom, multi-dimensional rubric framework and simple augmentation and regularization techniques, the proposed approach achieves higher inter-annotator agreement (0.23 points increase in Krippendorff's α) than the best performing state-of-the-art proprietary LLM. We also demonstrate the generalizability of the proposed training pipeline on a separate emotion classification task. The results show that task-specific alignment and efficient 4-bit quantized fine-tuning provide superior open-source alternative to using proprietary models for evaluation and annotation. Our finetuning approach is publicly available at https://github.com/jylee-k/slm-judge.