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.

Human-annotated content is often used to train machine learning (ML) models. However, recently, language and multi-modal foundational models have been used to replace and scale-up human annotator's efforts. This study compares human-generated and ML-generated annotations of images representing diverse socio-economic contexts. We aim to understand differences in perception and identify potential biases in content interpretation. Our dataset comprises images of people from various geographical regions and income levels washing their hands. We compare human and ML-generated annotations semantically and evaluate their impact on predictive models. Our results show low similarity between human and machine annotations from a low-level perspective, i.e., types of words that appear and sentence structures, but are alike in how similar or dissimilar they perceive images across different regions. Additionally, human annotations resulted in best overall and most balanced region classification performance on the class level, while ML Objects and ML Captions performed best for income regression. Humans and machines' similarity in their lack of bias when perceiving images highlights how they are more alike than what was initially perceived. The superior and fairer performance of using human annotations for region classification and machine annotations for income regression show how important the quality of the images and the discriminative features in the annotations are.

The effectiveness of automatic evaluation of generative models is typically measured by comparing it to human evaluation using correlation metrics. However, metrics like Krippendorff's $\alpha$ and Randolph's $\kappa$, originally designed to measure the reliability of human labeling, make assumptions about human behavior and the labeling process. In this paper, we show how *relying on a single aggregate correlation score* can obscure fundamental differences between human behavior and automatic evaluation methods, including LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, we demonstrate that when the proportion of samples with variation or uncertainty in human labels (gathered during human evaluation) is relatively high, machine labels (generated by automatic evaluation methods) may superficially appear to have similar or better correlation with the human majority label compared to human-to-human (HH) correlation. This can create the illusion that automatic evaluation approximates the human majority label. However, as the proportion of samples with consistent human labels increases, the correlation between machine and human labels fall well below HH correlation. Based on these findings, we first propose stratifying results by human label uncertainty to provide a more robust analysis of automatic evaluation performance. Second, recognizing that uncertainty and variation are inherent in perception-based human evaluations, such as those involving attitudes or preferences, we introduce a new metric - *binned Jensen-Shannon Divergence for perception* for such scenarios to better measure the effectiveness of automatic evaluations. Third, we present visualization techniques -- *perception charts*, to compare the strengths and limitations of automatic evaluation and to contextualize correlation measures appropriately