aiqbench analysis
This research redefines training data quality by analyzing the temporal stability of human annotators versus LLMs on interpretive tasks like segmenting Sumerian myths. The study reveals that while humans maintain consistent boundaries but drift in labeling semantics over time, models exhibit inconsistent patterns that can serve as a contamination check for datasets. This work highlights a critical shift where data quality metrics must account for the inherent subjectivity of human interpretation rather than relying solely on static agreement scores.
Boundaries Agree, Labels Do Not: Intra-Annotator Dynamics as a Kind of Training Data
arXiv:2610.04370v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Data quality now matters as much as compute for training language models. Much training data comes from human annotation of text, and interpretive annotation has no ground truth that could settle what is "accurate". Two lines of work respond to this. One combines annotators into a "ground truth" and measures how well they agree with each other; the other treats their disagreement as a signal. Both compare different people at one point in time. We measure something else: how well one reader reproduces their own reading of the same text over time. One expert human reader and three LLM families segmented three Sumerian myths and labelled the causal function of each segment with one of seven states. Across runs months apart, the human cut the text in much the same places but named the segments differently, in every myth. The models show no such consistent pattern: their gap between the two layers is positive in some myths and negative in others, and its size varies. The human's label changes are not random: the runs go through much the same functions but start them one step apart, while model runs start them at the same places. We argue that this pattern is a usable measure of data quality and a contamination check: a "human" annotation whose labels are as stable as its boundaries, and whose functions start in sync, looks like a model's.
Abstract:Data quality now matters as much as compute for training language models. Much training data comes from human annotation of text, and interpretive annotation has no ground truth that could settle what is "accurate". Two lines of work respond to this. One combines annotators into a "ground truth" and measures how well they agree with each other; the other treats their disagreement as a signal. Both compare different people at one point in time. We measure something else: how well one reader reproduces their own reading of the same text over time. One expert human reader and three LLM families segmented three Sumerian myths and labelled the causal function of each segment with one of seven states. Across runs months apart, the human cut the text in much the same places but named the segments differently, in every myth. The models show no such consistent pattern: their gap between the two layers is positive in some myths and negative in others, and its size varies. The human's label changes are not random: the runs go through much the same functions but start them one step apart, while model runs start them at the same places. We argue that this pattern is a usable measure of data quality and a contamination check: a "human" annotation whose labels are as stable as its boundaries, and whose functions start in sync, looks like a model's.
8 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables. Code and data: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.04370 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.04370v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04370 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

Presentation: From Copy-Paste to Composition: Building Agents Like Real Software
InfoQ · Jul 22, 2026

The Entangled Dimensions of Decision Theory
LessWrong · Jul 30, 2026

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026