# Improving Labeling Consistency with Detailed Constitutional Definitions and AI-Driven Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24247 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.24247/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 17 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 22 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06674/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01470/) (2024)
- [Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01833/) (2024)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05719/) (2021)
- [Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18837/) (2025)
- [Memory Injection Attacks on LLM Agents via Query-Only Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.03704/) (2025)
- [MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.01640/) (2021)
- [AEGIS: Online Adaptive AI Content Safety Moderation with Ensemble of LLM Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05993/) (2024)
- [Aegis2.0: A Diverse AI Safety Dataset and Risks Taxonomy for Alignment of LLM Guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.09004/) (2025)
- [Constitutional Classifiers++: Efficient Production-Grade Defenses against Universal Jailbreaks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04603/) (2026)
- [A Framework for Rapidly Developing and Deploying Protection Against Large Language Model Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.20639/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Many automated labeling pipelines classify inputs into categories defined by a written specification, content moderation being a prominent use case. Simple category definitions are not detailed enough for labelers to produce the accurate, consistent golden labels these pipelines require. One solution is to write a prescriptive definition that settles enough real boundary cases that labelers cannot disagree with the written interpretation. In practice, definitions at that level of detail exceed what a human annotator can hold in working memory, so annotators fall back on intuition and the labels drift from the written rules, regressing on accuracy and consistency. We propose and demonstrate the efficacy of an AI-driven workflow in which AI helps write a per-category constitution that defines the label in enough detail to cover edge cases, and a frontier LLM interprets it on each input to produce the golden label more consistently and accurately than humans reading the same document. We evaluate on three content moderation categories (harassment, hate speech, non-violent crime) and show that the approach reduces cross-model inconsistency by up to 57x compared to paragraph definitions, with cross-model disagreement diagnosing specification gaps and the human responsible for high-level decisions about what each category should mean rather than individual labeling calls. For the safety evaluation, we introduce a dual-axis formulation scoring intent and content independently over the full conversation, so downstream consumers can act on either axis or both.