aiqbench analysis
This arXiv preprint benchmarks LLMs against 73 human annotators on a linguistically subtle task: deciding whether 'they' refers to one or several entities in Reddit text. The best model scored 94.5%, above the human majority vote but below the single best annotator, and the authors argue that human reasoning on low-agreement cases helps refine the annotation scheme itself. For AI readers, the useful takeaway is the framing of LLMs as annotation support that still needs human oversight, not a full replacement. Results from one 174-item task and a single study should be weighed accordingly.
Who is the Pronoun Pro? Comparing LLMs and Humans at Number-Disambiguation of 'they'
arXiv:2611.04968v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably replace or complement human research assistants in linguistically complex annotation. In a controlled annotation task, 73 human annotators (local students and crowdworkers with and without a background in linguistics) and more than 40 LLM configurations number-disambiguated 174 authentic uses of 'they' from Reddit, including innovative and context-sensitive cases. The best LLM, Kimi K3, reached 94.5% accuracy, above the human majority vote (86.2%) and the mean of the top half of human annotators (78.5%); only the single best human annotator scored higher (95.7%). LLMs also offer substantial practical advantages in cost and speed. However, qualitative error analysis reveals a crucial complementarity: human reasoning in low-agreement cases exposes inconsistencies in the annotation typology and thereby improves the methodological framework itself. The study contributes (i) a benchmark-style human-LLM comparison for a semantically demanding task, (ii) transparent cost and time evidence, and (iii) a methodological argument against a purely replacement-oriented view of automation. LLMs are viable for large-scale annotation support in linguistics, but their responsible use requires human critical oversight. The dataset with its gold-standard labels, all human and LLM annotations, and the fully reproducible code are openly available as a Quarto-based, public repository.
Title:Who is the Pronoun Pro? Comparing LLMs and Humans at Number-Disambiguation of 'they'
Abstract:This study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably replace or complement human research assistants in linguistically complex annotation. In a controlled annotation task, 73 human annotators (local students and crowdworkers with and without a background in linguistics) and more than 40 LLM configurations number-disambiguated 174 authentic uses of 'they' from Reddit, including innovative and context-sensitive cases. The best LLM, Kimi K3, reached 94.5% accuracy, above the human majority vote (86.2%) and the mean of the top half of human annotators (78.5%); only the single best human annotator scored higher (95.7%). LLMs also offer substantial practical advantages in cost and speed. However, qualitative error analysis reveals a crucial complementarity: human reasoning in low-agreement cases exposes inconsistencies in the annotation typology and thereby improves the methodological framework itself. The study contributes (i) a benchmark-style human-LLM comparison for a semantically demanding task, (ii) transparent cost and time evidence, and (iii) a methodological argument against a purely replacement-oriented view of automation. LLMs are viable for large-scale annotation support in linguistics, but their responsible use requires human critical oversight. The dataset with its gold-standard labels, all human and LLM annotations, and the fully reproducible code are openly available as a Quarto-based, public repository.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2611.04968 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2611.04968v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.04968 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 · 314 words