Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly demonstrating the potential to reach human-level performance in generating clinical summaries from patient-clinician conversations. However, these summaries often focus on patients' biology rather than their preferences, values, wishes, and concerns. To achieve patient-centered care, we propose a new standard for Artificial Intelligence (AI) clinical summarization tasks: Patient-Centered Summaries (PCS). Our objective was to develop a framework to generate PCS that capture patient values and ensure clinical utility and to assess whether current open-source LLMs can achieve human-level performance in this task. We used a mixed-methods process. Two Patient and Public Involvement groups (10 patients and 8 clinicians) in the United Kingdom participated in semi-structured interviews exploring what personal and contextual information should be included in clinical summaries and how it should be structured for clinical use. Findings informed annotation guidelines used by eight clinicians to create gold-standard PCS from 88 atrial fibrillation consultations. Sixteen consultations were used to refine a prompt aligned with the guidelines. Five open-source LLMs (Llama-3.2-3B, Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-8B, Gemma-3-4B, and Qwen3-8B) generated summaries for 72 consultations using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, evaluated with ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and qualitative metrics. Patients emphasized lifestyle routines, social support, recent stressors, and care values. Clinicians sought concise functional, psychosocial, and emotional context. The best zero-shot performance was achieved by Mistral-8B (ROUGE-L 0.189) and Llama-3.1-8B (BERTScore 0.673); the best few-shot by Llama-3.1-8B (ROUGE-L 0.206, BERTScore 0.683). Completeness and fluency were similar between experts and models, while correctness and patient-centeredness favored human PCS.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as raters for evaluation tasks. However, their reliability is often limited for subjective tasks, when human judgments involve subtle reasoning beyond annotation labels. Thinking traces, the reasoning behind a judgment, are highly informative but challenging to collect and curate. We present a human-LLM collaborative framework to infer thinking traces from label-only annotations. The proposed framework uses a simple and effective rejection sampling method to reconstruct these traces at scale. These inferred thinking traces are applied to two complementary tasks: (1) fine-tuning open LLM raters; and (2) synthesizing clearer annotation guidelines for proprietary LLM raters. Across multiple datasets, our methods lead to significantly improved LLM-human agreement. Additionally, the refined annotation guidelines increase agreement among different LLM models. These results suggest that LLMs can serve as practical proxies for otherwise unrevealed human thinking traces, enabling label-only corpora to be extended into thinking-trace-augmented resources that enhance the reliability of LLM raters.

This case study explores the potential of repurposing existing annotation guidelines to instruct a large language model (LLM) annotator in text annotation tasks. Traditional annotation projects invest significant resources--both time and cost--in developing comprehensive annotation guidelines. These are primarily designed for human annotators who will undergo training sessions to check and correct their understanding of the guidelines. While the results of the training are internalized in the human annotators, LLMs require the training content to be materialized. Thus, we introduce a method called moderation-oriented guideline repurposing, which adapts annotation guidelines to provide clear and explicit instructions through a process called LLM moderation. Using the NCBI Disease Corpus and its detailed guidelines, our experimental results demonstrate that, despite several remaining challenges, repurposing the guidelines can effectively guide LLM annotators. Our findings highlight both the promising potential and the limitations of leveraging the proposed workflow in automated settings, offering a new direction for a scalable and cost-effective refinement of annotation guidelines and the following annotation process.

In science, promotional language ('hype') is increasing and can undermine objective evaluation of evidence, impede research development, and erode trust in science. In this paper, we introduce the task of automatic detection of hype, which we define as hyperbolic or subjective language that authors use to glamorize, promote, embellish, or exaggerate aspects of their research. We propose formalized guidelines for identifying hype language and apply them to annotate a portion of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application corpus. We then evaluate traditional text classifiers and language models on this task, comparing their performance with a human baseline. Our experiments show that formalizing annotation guidelines can help humans reliably annotate candidate hype adjectives and that using our annotated dataset to train machine learning models yields promising results. Our findings highlight the linguistic complexity of the task, and the potential need for domain knowledge and temporal awareness of the facts. While some linguistic works address hype detection, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to approach it as a natural language processing task.

We introduce KyrgyzNER, the first manually annotated named entity recognition dataset for the Kyrgyz language. Comprising 1,499 news articles from the 24.KG news portal, the dataset contains 10,900 sentences and 39,075 entity mentions across 27 named entity classes. We show our annotation scheme, discuss the challenges encountered in the annotation process, and present the descriptive statistics. We also evaluate several named entity recognition models, including traditional sequence labeling approaches based on conditional random fields and state-of-the-art multilingual transformer-based models fine-tuned on our dataset. While all models show difficulties with rare entity categories, models such as the multilingual RoBERTa variant pretrained on a large corpus across many languages achieve a promising balance between precision and recall. These findings emphasize both the challenges and opportunities of using multilingual pretrained models for processing languages with limited resources. Although the multilingual RoBERTa model performed best, other multilingual models yielded comparable results. This suggests that future work exploring more granular annotation schemes may offer deeper insights for Kyrgyz language processing pipelines evaluation.

Nonmedical opioid use is an urgent public health challenge, with far-reaching clinical and social consequences that are often underreported in traditional healthcare settings. Social media platforms, where individuals candidly share first-person experiences, offer a valuable yet underutilized source of insight into these impacts. In this study, we present a named entity recognition (NER) framework to extract two categories of self-reported consequences from social media narratives related to opioid use: ClinicalImpacts (e.g., withdrawal, depression) and SocialImpacts (e.g., job loss). To support this task, we introduce RedditImpacts 2.0, a high-quality dataset with refined annotation guidelines and a focus on first-person disclosures, addressing key limitations of prior work. We evaluate both fine-tuned encoder-based models and state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) under zero- and few-shot in-context learning settings. Our fine-tuned DeBERTa-large model achieves a relaxed token-level F1 of 0.61 [95% CI: 0.43-0.62], consistently outperforming LLMs in precision, span accuracy, and adherence to task-specific guidelines. Furthermore, we show that strong NER performance can be achieved with substantially less labeled data, emphasizing the feasibility of deploying robust models in resource-limited settings. Our findings underscore the value of domain-specific fine-tuning for clinical NLP tasks and contribute to the responsible development of AI tools that may enhance addiction surveillance, improve interpretability, and support real-world healthcare decision-making. The best performing model, however, still significantly underperforms compared to inter-expert agreement (Cohen's kappa: 0.81), demonstrating that a gap persists between expert intelligence and current state-of-the-art NER/AI capabilities for tasks requiring deep domain knowledge.

We present our work to build a French semantic corpus by annotating French dialogue in Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR). Specifically, we annotate the DinG corpus, consisting of transcripts of spontaneous French dialogues recorded during the board game Catan. As AMR has insufficient coverage of the dynamics of spontaneous speech, we extend the framework to better represent spontaneous speech and sentence structures specific to French. Additionally, to support consistent annotation, we provide an annotation guideline detailing these extensions. We publish our corpus under a free license (CC-SA-BY). We also train and evaluate an AMR parser on our data. This model can be used as an assistance annotation tool to provide initial annotations that can be refined by human annotators. Our work contributes to the development of semantic resources for French dialogue.

Textual data annotation, the process of labeling or tagging text with relevant information, is typically costly, time-consuming, and labor-intensive. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential as direct alternatives to human annotators for general domains natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their effectiveness on annotation tasks in domains requiring expert knowledge remains underexplored. In this paper, we investigate: whether top-performing LLMs, which might be perceived as having expert-level proficiency in academic and professional benchmarks, can serve as direct alternatives to human expert annotators? To this end, we evaluate both individual LLMs and multi-agent approaches across three highly specialized domains: finance, biomedicine, and law. Specifically, we propose a multi-agent discussion framework to simulate a group of human annotators, where LLMs are tasked to engage in discussions by considering others' annotations and justifications before finalizing their labels. Additionally, we incorporate reasoning models (e.g., o3-mini) to enable a more comprehensive comparison. Our empirical results reveal that: (1) Individual LLMs equipped with inference-time techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought (CoT), self-consistency) show only marginal or even negative performance gains, contrary to prior literature suggesting their broad effectiveness. (2) Overall, reasoning models do not demonstrate statistically significant improvements over non-reasoning models in most settings. This suggests that extended long CoT provides relatively limited benefits for data annotation in specialized domains. (3) Certain model behaviors emerge in the multi-agent discussion environment. For instance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet with thinking rarely changes its initial annotations, even when other agents provide correct annotations or valid reasoning.

This paper presents a competitive approach to multilingual subjectivity detection using large language models (LLMs) with few-shot prompting. We participated in Task 1: Subjectivity of the CheckThat! 2025 evaluation campaign. We show that LLMs, when paired with carefully designed prompts, can match or outperform fine-tuned smaller language models (SLMs), particularly in noisy or low-quality data settings. Despite experimenting with advanced prompt engineering techniques, such as debating LLMs and various example selection strategies, we found limited benefit beyond well-crafted standard few-shot prompts. Our system achieved top rankings across multiple languages in the CheckThat! 2025 subjectivity detection task, including first place in Arabic and Polish, and top-four finishes in Italian, English, German, and multilingual tracks. Notably, our method proved especially robust on the Arabic dataset, likely due to its resilience to annotation inconsistencies. These findings highlight the effectiveness and adaptability of LLM-based few-shot learning for multilingual sentiment tasks, offering a strong alternative to traditional fine-tuning, particularly when labeled data is scarce or inconsistent.