Modeling complex subjective tasks in Natural Language Processing, such as recognizing emotion and morality, is considerably challenging due to significant variation in human annotations. This variation often reflects reasonable differences in semantic interpretations rather than mere noise, necessitating methods to distinguish between legitimate subjectivity and error. We address this challenge by exploring label verification in these contexts using Large Language Models (LLMs). First, we propose a simple In-Context Learning binary filtering baseline that estimates the reasonableness of a document-label pair. We then introduce the Label-in-a-Haystack setting: the query and its label(s) are included in the demonstrations shown to LLMs, which are prompted to predict the label(s) again, while receiving task-specific instructions (e.g., emotion recognition) rather than label copying. We show how the failure to copy the label(s) to the output of the LLM are task-relevant and informative. Building on this, we propose the Label-in-a-Haystack Rectification (LiaHR) framework for subjective label correction: when the model outputs diverge from the reference gold labels, we assign the generated labels to the example instead of discarding it. This approach can be integrated into annotation pipelines to enhance signal-to-noise ratios. Comprehensive analyses, human evaluations, and ecological validity studies verify the utility of LiaHR for label correction. Code is available at https://github.com/gchochla/liahr.

The ability to handle various emotion labels without dedicated training is crucial for building adaptable Emotion Recognition (ER) systems. Conventional ER models rely on training using fixed label sets and struggle to generalize beyond them. On the other hand, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong zero-shot ER performance across diverse label spaces, but their scale limits their use on edge devices. In this work, we propose a contrastive distillation framework that transfers rich emotional knowledge from LLMs into a compact model without the use of human annotations. We use GPT-4 to generate descriptive emotion annotations, offering rich supervision beyond fixed label sets. By aligning text samples with emotion descriptors in a shared embedding space, our method enables zero-shot prediction on different emotion classes, granularity, and label schema. The distilled model is effective across multiple datasets and label spaces, outperforming strong baselines of similar size and approaching GPT-4's zero-shot performance, while being over 10,000 times smaller.

This work investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in detecting and understanding human emotions through text. Drawing upon emotion models from psychology, we adopt an interdisciplinary perspective that integrates computational and affective sciences insights. The main goal is to assess how accurately they can identify emotions expressed in textual interactions and compare different models on this specific task. This research contributes to broader efforts to enhance human-computer interaction, making artificial intelligence technologies more responsive and sensitive to users' emotional nuances. By employing a methodology that involves comparisons with a state-of-the-art model on the GoEmotions dataset, we aim to gauge LLMs' effectiveness as a system for emotional analysis, paving the way for potential applications in various fields that require a nuanced understanding of human language.

Modern affective computing systems rely heavily on datasets with human-annotated emotion labels, for training and evaluation. However, human annotations are expensive to obtain, sensitive to study design, and difficult to quality control, because of the subjective nature of emotions. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on many Natural Language Understanding tasks, emerging as a promising tool for text annotation. In this work, we analyze the complexities of emotion annotation in the context of LLMs, focusing on GPT-4 as a leading model. In our experiments, GPT-4 achieves high ratings in a human evaluation study, painting a more positive picture than previous work, in which human labels served as the only ground truth. On the other hand, we observe differences between human and GPT-4 emotion perception, underscoring the importance of human input in annotation studies. To harness GPT-4's strength while preserving human perspective, we explore two ways of integrating GPT-4 into emotion annotation pipelines, showing its potential to flag low-quality labels, reduce the workload of human annotators, and improve downstream model learning performance and efficiency. Together, our findings highlight opportunities for new emotion labeling practices and suggest the use of LLMs as a promising tool to aid human annotation.

In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs). The knowledge acquired during pre-training is crucial for this few-shot capability, providing the model with task priors. However, recent studies have shown that ICL predominantly relies on retrieving task priors rather than "learning" to perform tasks. This limitation is particularly evident in complex subjective domains such as emotion and morality, where priors significantly influence posterior predictions. In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Moreover, we evaluate the posterior bias towards certain annotators by grounding our study in appropriate, quantitative measures of LLM priors. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead. However, aggregation does not explain the entire gap between ICL and the state of the art, meaning other factors in such tasks also account for the observed phenomena. Finally, by rigorously studying annotator-level labels, we find that it is possible for minority annotators to both better align with LLMs and have their perspectives further amplified.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance through supervised fine-tuning or in-context learning using gold labels. However, this paradigm is limited by the availability of gold labels, while in certain scenarios, LLMs may need to perform tasks that are too complex for humans to provide such labels. To tackle this challenge, this study explores whether solely utilizing unlabeled data can elicit strong model capabilities. We propose a new paradigm termed zero-to-strong generalization. We iteratively prompt LLMs to annotate unlabeled data and retain high-quality labels by filtering. Surprisingly, we obverse that this iterative process gradually unlocks LLMs' potential on downstream tasks. Our experiments on extensive classification and reasoning tasks confirm the effectiveness of our proposed framework. Our analysis indicates that this paradigm is effective for both in-context learning and fine-tuning, and for various model sizes.

Recent trends in natural language processing research and annotation tasks affirm a paradigm shift from the traditional reliance on a single ground truth to a focus on individual perspectives, particularly in subjective tasks. In scenarios where annotation tasks are meant to encompass diversity, models that solely rely on the majority class labels may inadvertently disregard valuable minority perspectives. This oversight could result in the omission of crucial information and, in a broader context, risk disrupting the balance within larger ecosystems. As the landscape of annotator modeling unfolds with diverse representation techniques, it becomes imperative to investigate their effectiveness with the fine-grained features of the datasets in view. This study systematically explores various annotator modeling techniques and compares their performance across seven corpora. From our findings, we show that the commonly used user token model consistently outperforms more complex models. We introduce a composite embedding approach and show distinct differences in which model performs best as a function of the agreement with a given dataset. Our findings shed light on the relationship between corpus statistics and annotator modeling performance, which informs future work on corpus construction and perspectivist NLP.

In Federated Learning (FL), the distributed nature and heterogeneity of client data present both opportunities and challenges. While collaboration among clients can significantly enhance the learning process, not all collaborations are beneficial; some may even be detrimental. In this study, we introduce a novel algorithm that assigns adaptive aggregation weights to clients participating in FL training, identifying those with data distributions most conducive to a specific learning objective. We demonstrate that our aggregation method converges no worse than the method that aggregates only the updates received from clients with the same data distribution. Furthermore, empirical evaluations consistently reveal that collaborations guided by our algorithm outperform traditional FL approaches. This underscores the critical role of judicious client selection and lays the foundation for more streamlined and effective FL implementations in the coming years.

In response to everyday queries, humans explicitly signal uncertainty and offer alternative answers when they are unsure. Machine learning models that output calibrated prediction sets through conformal prediction mimic this human behaviour; larger sets signal greater uncertainty while providing alternatives. In this work, we study the usefulness of conformal prediction sets as an aid for human decision making by conducting a pre-registered randomized controlled trial with conformal prediction sets provided to human subjects. With statistical significance, we find that when humans are given conformal prediction sets their accuracy on tasks improves compared to fixed-size prediction sets with the same coverage guarantee. The results show that quantifying model uncertainty with conformal prediction is helpful for human-in-the-loop decision making and human-AI teams.

In-context learning (ICL) using large language models for tasks with many labels is challenging due to the limited context window, which makes it difficult to fit a sufficient number of examples in the prompt. In this paper, we use a pre-trained dense retrieval model to bypass this limitation, giving the model only a partial view of the full label space for each inference call. Testing with recent open-source LLMs (OPT, LLaMA), we set new state of the art performance in few-shot settings for three common intent classification datasets, with no finetuning. We also surpass fine-tuned performance on fine-grained sentiment classification in certain cases. We analyze the performance across number of in-context examples and different model scales, showing that larger models are necessary to effectively and consistently make use of larger context lengths for ICL. By running several ablations, we analyze the model's use of: a) the similarity of the in-context examples to the current input, b) the semantic content of the class names, and c) the correct correspondence between examples and labels. We demonstrate that all three are needed to varying degrees depending on the domain, contrary to certain recent works.