Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2501.08413

Labeling Free-text Data using Language Model Ensembles

Abstract

Free-text responses are commonly collected in psychological studies, providing rich qualitative insights that quantitative measures may not capture. Labeling curated topics of research interest in free-text data by multiple trained human coders is typically labor-intensive and time-consuming. Though large language models (LLMs) excel in language processing, LLM-assisted labeling techniques relying on closed-source LLMs cannot be directly applied to free-text data, without explicit consent for external use. In this study, we propose a framework of assembling locally-deployable LLMs to enhance the labeling of predetermined topics in free-text data under privacy constraints. Analogous to annotation by multiple human raters, this framework leverages the heterogeneity of diverse open-source LLMs. The ensemble approach seeks a balance between the agreement and disagreement across LLMs, guided by a relevancy scoring methodology that utilizes embedding distances between topic descriptions and LLMs' reasoning. We evaluated the ensemble approach using both publicly accessible Reddit data from eating disorder related forums, and free-text responses from eating disorder patients, both complemented by human annotations. We found that: (1) there is heterogeneity in the performance of labeling among same-sized LLMs, with some showing low sensitivity but high precision, while others exhibit high sensitivity but low precision. (2) Compared to individual LLMs, the ensemble of LLMs achieved the highest accuracy and optimal precision-sensitivity trade-off in predicting human annotations. (3) The relevancy scores across LLMs showed greater agreement than dichotomous labels, indicating that the relevancy scoring method effectively mitigates the heterogeneity in LLMs' labeling.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiaxing Qiu, Dongliang Guo, Natalie Papini, Noelle Peace, Hannah F. Fitterman-Harris, Cheri A. Levinson, Tom Hartvigsen, Teague R. Henry. 2025-09-26. Labeling Free-text Data using Language Model Ensembles. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08413

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

DA-Cramming: Enhancing Cost-Effective Language Model Pretraining with Dependency Agreement Integration

Pretraining language models is still a challenge for many researchers due to its substantial computational costs. As such, there is growing interest in developing more affordable pretraining methods. One notable advancement in this area is the Cramming technique (Geiping and Goldstein, 2022), which enables the pretraining of BERT-style language models using just one GPU in a single day. Building on this innovative approach, we introduce the Dependency Agreement Cramming (DA-Cramming), an efficient framework that integrates information about dependency agreements into the pretraining process. Unlike existing methods that leverage similar semantic information during finetuning, our approach represents a pioneering effort focusing on enhancing the foundational language understanding with semantic information during pretraining. We meticulously design a dual-stage pretraining work flow with four dedicated submodels to capture representative dependency agreements at the chunk level, effectively transforming these agreements into embeddings to benefit the pretraining. Extensive empirical results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms previous methods across various tasks.

cs.CL

BigO(Bench): Can LLMs Generate Code with Controlled Time and Space Complexity?

We introduce BigO(Bench), a novel coding benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of generative language models in understanding and generating code with specified time and space complexities. This benchmark addresses the gap in current evaluations that often overlook the ability of models to comprehend and produce code constrained by computational complexity. BigO(Bench) includes tooling to infer the algorithmic complexity of any Python function from profiling measurements, including human- or LLM-generated solutions. BigO(Bench) also includes of set of 3,105 coding problems and 1,190,250 solutions from Code Contests annotated with inferred (synthetic) time and space complexity labels from the complexity framework, as well as corresponding runtime and memory footprint values for a large set of input sizes. We present results from evaluating multiple state-of-the-art language models on this benchmark, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses in handling complexity requirements. In particular, token-space reasoning models are unrivaled in code generation but not in complexity understanding, hinting that they may not generalize well to tasks for which no reward was given at training time.

cs.CL

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL