Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866910157325205504 |
|---|---|
| author | Hakimi, Ahmad Dawar Hirlimann, Lea Augenstein, Isabelle Schütze, Hinrich |
| author_facet | Hakimi, Ahmad Dawar Hirlimann, Lea Augenstein, Isabelle Schütze, Hinrich |
| contents | Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances from a short prompt at negligible cost. This raises two questions for active learning (AL): can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be labelled at once? We investigate both questions on a new dataset of 277,902 German political TikTok comments (25,974 LLM-labelled, 5,000 human-annotated), comparing seven annotation strategies across four encoders to detect anti-immigrant hostility. A classifier trained on 25,974 GPT-5.2 labels (\$43) achieves comparable F1-Macro to one trained on 3,800 human annotations (\$316). Active learning offers little advantage over random sampling in our pre-enriched pool and delivers lower F1 than full LLM annotation at the same cost. However, comparable aggregate F1 masks a systematic difference in error structure: LLM-trained classifiers over-predict the positive class relative to the human gold standard. This divergence concentrates in topically ambiguous discussions where the distinction between anti-immigrant hostility and policy critique is most subtle, suggesting that annotation strategy should be guided not by aggregate F1 alone but by the error profile acceptable for the target application. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_13899 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection Hakimi, Ahmad Dawar Hirlimann, Lea Augenstein, Isabelle Schütze, Hinrich Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances from a short prompt at negligible cost. This raises two questions for active learning (AL): can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be labelled at once? We investigate both questions on a new dataset of 277,902 German political TikTok comments (25,974 LLM-labelled, 5,000 human-annotated), comparing seven annotation strategies across four encoders to detect anti-immigrant hostility. A classifier trained on 25,974 GPT-5.2 labels (\$43) achieves comparable F1-Macro to one trained on 3,800 human annotations (\$316). Active learning offers little advantage over random sampling in our pre-enriched pool and delivers lower F1 than full LLM annotation at the same cost. However, comparable aggregate F1 masks a systematic difference in error structure: LLM-trained classifiers over-predict the positive class relative to the human gold standard. This divergence concentrates in topically ambiguous discussions where the distinction between anti-immigrant hostility and policy critique is most subtle, suggesting that annotation strategy should be guided not by aggregate F1 alone but by the error profile acceptable for the target application. |
| title | Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.13899 |