Data-driven operations management often relies on parameters estimated from costly human-generated labels. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and other AI systems offer inexpensive auxiliary data, but introduce a new challenge: AI outputs are not direct observations of the target outcomes, but could involve high-dimensional representations with complex and unknown relationships to human labels. Conventional methods leverage AI predictions as direct proxies for true labels, which can be inefficient or unreliable when this relationship is weak or misspecified. We propose Generative Augmented Inference (GAI), a general framework that incorporates AI-generated outputs as informative features for estimating models of human-labeled outcomes. GAI uses an orthogonal moment construction that enables consistent estimation and valid inference with flexible, nonparametric relationship between LLM-generated outputs and human labels. We establish asymptotic normality and show a "safe default" property: relative to human-data-only estimators, GAI weakly improves estimation efficiency under arbitrary auxiliary signals and yields strict gains whenever the auxiliary information is predictive. Empirically, GAI outperforms benchmarks across diverse settings. In conjoint analysis with weak auxiliary signals, GAI reduces estimation error by about 50% and lowers human labeling requirements by over 75%. In retail pricing, where all methods access the same auxiliary inputs, GAI consistently outperforms alternative estimators, highlighting the value of its construction rather than differences in information. In health insurance choice, it cuts labeling requirements by over 90% while maintaining decision accuracy. Across applications, GAI improves confidence interval coverage without inflating width. Overall, GAI provides a principled and scalable approach to integrating AI-generated information.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate survey responses at low cost, but their reliability varies substantially across questions and is unknown before data collection. Deploying LLMs in surveys still requires costly human responses for verification and correction. How should a limited human-labeling budget be allocated across questions in real time? We propose an adaptive allocation algorithm that learns which questions are hardest for the LLM while simultaneously collecting human responses. Each human label serves a dual role: it improves the estimate for that question and reveals how well the LLM predicts human responses on it. The algorithm directs more budget to questions where the LLM is least reliable, without requiring any prior knowledge of question-level LLM accuracy. We prove that the allocation gap relative to the best possible allocation vanishes as the budget grows, and validate the approach on both synthetic data and a real survey dataset with 68 questions and over 2000 respondents. On real survey data, the standard practice of allocating human labels uniformly across questions wastes 10--12% of the budget relative to the optimal; our algorithm reduces this waste to 2--6%, and the advantage grows as questions become more heterogeneous in LLM prediction quality. The algorithm achieves the same estimation quality as traditional uniform sampling with fewer human samples, requires no pilot study, and is backed by formal performance guarantees validated on real survey data. More broadly, the framework applies whenever scarce human oversight must be allocated across tasks where LLM reliability is unknown.

Relevance judgments are central to the evaluation of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, but obtaining them from human annotators is costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as automated assessors, showing promising alignment with human annotations. Most prior studies have treated documents as fixed units, feeding their full content directly to LLM assessors. We investigate how text summarization affects the reliability of LLM-based judgments and their downstream impact on IR evaluation. Using state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple TREC collections, we compare judgments made from full documents with those based on LLM-generated summaries of different lengths. We examine their agreement with human labels, their effect on retrieval effectiveness evaluation, and their influence on IR systems' ranking stability. Our findings show that summary-based judgments achieve comparable stability in systems' ranking to full-document judgments, while introducing systematic shifts in label distributions and biases that vary by model and dataset. These results highlight summarization as both an opportunity for more efficient large-scale IR evaluation and a methodological choice with important implications for the reliability of automatic judgments.

We thank the reviewers for valuable and timely comments. We'd like to first emphasize the challenges and contributions: Section 3.2 explains how to calculate this hyper-gradient of Framework for BackPropagation, LeCun, 1988), and widely adopted in the literature [14, 15, 35]. We would like to further polish the notation to be more consistent. 'Pretrain (Top)' is much better than'Pretrain (Down)'.

A comprehensive understanding of traffic accidents is essential for improving city safety and informing policy decisions. In this study, we analyze traffic incidents in Munich to identify patterns and characteristics that distinguish different types of accidents. The dataset consists of both structured tabular features, such as location, time, and weather conditions, as well as unstructured free-text descriptions detailing the circumstances of each accident. Each incident is categorized into one of seven predefined classes. To assess the reliability of these labels, we apply NLP methods, including topic modeling and few-shot learning, which reveal inconsistencies in the labeling process. These findings highlight potential ambiguities in accident classification and motivate a refined predictive approach. Building on these insights, we develop a classification model that achieves high accuracy in assigning accidents to their respective categories. Our results demonstrate that textual descriptions contain the most informative features for classification, while the inclusion of tabular data provides only marginal improvements. These findings emphasize the critical role of free-text data in accident analysis and highlight the potential of transformer-based models in improving classification reliability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in both academic and industry settings to automate the evaluation of information seeking systems, particularly by generating graded relevance judgments. Previous work on LLM-based relevance assessment has primarily focused on replicating graded human relevance judgments through various prompting strategies. However, there has been limited exploration of alternative assessment methods or comprehensive comparative studies. In this paper, we systematically compare multiple LLM-based relevance assessment methods, including binary relevance judgments, graded relevance assessments, pairwise preference-based methods, and two nugget-based evaluation methods~--~document-agnostic and document-dependent. In addition to a traditional comparison based on system rankings using Kendall correlations, we also examine how well LLM judgments align with human preferences, as inferred from relevance grades. We conduct extensive experiments on datasets from three TREC Deep Learning tracks 2019, 2020 and 2021 as well as the ANTIQUE dataset, which focuses on non-factoid open-domain question answering. As part of our data release, we include relevance judgments generated by both an open-source (Llama3.2b) and a commercial (gpt-4o) model. Our goal is to \textit{reproduce} various LLM-based relevance judgment methods to provide a comprehensive comparison. All code, data, and resources are publicly available in our GitHub Repository at https://github.com/Narabzad/llm-relevance-judgement-comparison.

Detecting the three-dimensional position and orientation of objects using a single RGB camera is a foundational task in computer vision with many important applications. Traditionally, 3D object detection methods are trained in a fully-supervised setup, requiring vast amounts of human annotations, which are laborious, costly, and do not scale well with the ever-increasing amounts of data being captured. In this paper, we present the first method to train 3D object detectors for monocular RGB cameras without domain-specific human annotations, thus making orders of magnitude more data available for training. Thanks to newly proposed Canonical Object Space, the method can not only exploit data across a variety of datasets and camera setups to train a single 3D detector, but unlike previous work it also works out of the box in previously unseen camera setups. All this is crucial for practical applications, where the data and cameras are extremely heterogeneous. The method is evaluated on two standard autonomous driving datasets, where it outperforms previous works, which, unlike our method, still rely on 2D human annotations.

Objectives: Compare qualitative coding of instruction tuned large language models (IT-LLMs) against human coders in classifying the presence or absence of vulnerability in routinely collected unstructured text that describes police-public interactions. Evaluate potential bias in IT-LLM codings. Methods: Analyzing publicly available text narratives of police-public interactions recorded by Boston Police Department, we provide humans and IT-LLMs with qualitative labelling codebooks and compare labels generated by both, seeking to identify situations associated with (i) mental ill health; (ii) substance misuse; (iii) alcohol dependence; and (iv) homelessness. We explore multiple prompting strategies and model sizes, and the variability of labels generated by repeated prompts. Additionally, to explore model bias, we utilize counterfactual methods to assess the impact of two protected characteristics - race and gender - on IT-LLM classification. Results: Results demonstrate that IT-LLMs can effectively support human qualitative coding of police incident narratives. While there is some disagreement between LLM and human generated labels, IT-LLMs are highly effective at screening narratives where no vulnerabilities are present, potentially vastly reducing the requirement for human coding. Counterfactual analyses demonstrate that manipulations to both gender and race of individuals described in narratives have very limited effects on IT-LLM classifications beyond those expected by chance. Conclusions: IT-LLMs offer effective means to augment human qualitative coding in a way that requires much lower levels of resource to analyze large unstructured datasets. Moreover, they encourage specificity in qualitative coding, promote transparency, and provide the opportunity for more standardized, replicable approaches to analyzing large free-text police data sources.

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.