An official website of the United States government
Training emotion recognition models has relied heavily on human annotated data, which present diversity, quality, and cost challenges. In this paper, we explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, in automating or assisting emotion annotation. We compare GPT-4 with supervised models and/or humans in three aspects: agreement with human annotations, alignment with human perception, and impact on model training. We find that common metrics that use aggregated human annotations as ground truth can underestimate GPT-4's performance, and our human evaluation experiment reveals a consistent preference for GPT-4 annotations over humans across multiple datasets and evaluators. Further, we investigate the impact of using GPT-4 as an annotation filtering process to improve model training. Together, our findings highlight the great potential of LLMs in emotion annotation tasks and underscore the need for refined evaluation methodologies.
more »
« less
Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution: Instruct Humans or Instruct GPT?
This paper explores utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution (CDEC) annotations and evaluates how they fare against human annotators with different levels of training. Specifically, we formulate CDEC as a multi-category classification problem on pairs of events that are represented as decontextualized sentences, and compare the predictions of GPT-4 with the judgment of fully trained annotators and crowdworkers on the same data set. Our study indicates that GPT-4 with zero-shot learning outperformed crowd-workers by a large margin and exhibits a level of performance comparable to trained annotators. Upon closer analysis, GPT-4 also exhibits tendencies of being overly confident, and force annotation decisions even when such decisions are not warranted due to insufficient information. Our results have implications on how to perform complicated annotations such as CDEC in the age of LLMs, and show that the best way to acquire such annotations might be to combine the strengths of LLMs and trained human annotators in the annotation process, and using untrained or undertrained crowdworkers is no longer a viable option to acquire high-quality data to advance the state of the art for such problems.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10527033
- Editor(s):
- Jiang, Jing; Reitter, David; Deng, Shumin
- Publisher / Repository:
- Association for Computational Linguistics
- Date Published:
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 561 to 574
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Singapore
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Bonial, Claire; Bonn, Julia; Hwang, Jena D (Ed.)We explore using LLMs, GPT-4 specifically, to generate draft sentence-level Chinese Uniform Meaning Representations (UMRs) that human annotators can revise to speed up the UMR annotation process. In this study, we use few-shot learning and Think-Aloud prompting to guide GPT-4 to generate sentence-level graphs of UMR. Our experimental results show that compared with annotating UMRs from scratch, using LLMs as a preprocessing step reduces the annotation time by two thirds on average. This indicates that there is great potential for integrating LLMs into the pipeline for complicated semantic annotation tasks.more » « less
-
Bonial, Claire; Bonn, Julia; Hwang, Jena D (Ed.)We explore using LLMs, GPT-4 specifically, to generate draft sentence-level Chinese Uniform Meaning Representations (UMRs) that human annotators can revise to speed up the UMR annotation process. In this study, we use few-shot learning and Think-Aloud prompting to guide GPT-4 to generate sentence-level graphs of UMR. Our experimental results show that compared with annotating UMRs from scratch, using LLMs as a preprocessing step reduces the annotation time by two thirds on average. This indicates that there is great potential for integrating LLMs into the pipeline for complicated semantic annotation tasks.more » « less
-
Abstract Large language models (LLMs) are capable of successfully performing many language processing tasks zero-shot (without training data). If zero-shot LLMs can also reliably classify and explain social phenomena like persuasiveness and political ideology, then LLMs could augment the computational social science (CSS) pipeline in important ways. This work provides a road map for using LLMs as CSS tools. Towards this end, we contribute a set of prompting best practices and an extensive evaluation pipeline to measure the zero-shot performance of 13 language models on 25 representative English CSS benchmarks. On taxonomic labeling tasks (classification), LLMs fail to outperform the best fine-tuned models but still achieve fair levels of agreement with humans. On free-form coding tasks (generation), LLMs produce explanations that often exceed the quality of crowdworkers’ gold references. We conclude that the performance of today’s LLMs can augment the CSS research pipeline in two ways: (1) serving as zero-shot data annotators on human annotation teams, and (2) bootstrapping challenging creative generation tasks (e.g., explaining the underlying attributes of a text). In summary, LLMs are posed to meaningfully participate in social science analysis in partnership with humans.more » « less
-
Exposing students to low-quality assessments such as multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and short answer questions (SAQs) is detrimental to their learning, making it essential to accurately evaluate these assessments. Existing evaluation methods are often challenging to scale and fail to consider their pedagogical value within course materials. Online crowds offer a scalable and cost-effective source of intelligence, but often lack necessary domain expertise. Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer automation and scalability, but may also lack precise domain knowledge. To explore these trade-offs, we compare the effectiveness and reliability of crowdsourced and LLM-based methods for assessing the quality of 30 MCQs and SAQs across six educational domains using two standardized evaluation rubrics. We analyzed the performance of 84 crowdworkers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk and Prolific, comparing their quality evaluations to those made by the three LLMs: GPT-4, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3 Opus. We found that crowdworkers on Prolific consistently delivered the highest-quality assessments, and GPT-4 emerged as the most effective LLM for this task. Our study reveals that while traditional crowdsourced methods often yield more accurate assessments, LLMs can match this accuracy in specific evaluative criteria. These results provide evidence for a hybrid approach to educational content evaluation, integrating the scalability of AI with the nuanced judgment of humans. We offer feasibility considerations in using AI to supplement human judgment in educational assessment.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.conll-1.38
