arxiv: 2605.10415 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: no theorem link

Aligning LLM Uncertainty with Human Disagreement in Subjectivity Analysis

Junyu Lu , Deyi Ji , Xuanyi Liu , Lanyun Zhu , Bo Xu , Liang Yang , Hongfei Lin

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 21:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords LLM uncertaintyhuman disagreementsubjectivity analysisuncertainty alignmentGRPO optimizationdisagreement perceptionoverconfidence mitigation

0 comments

The pith

A two-phase framework lets LLMs express uncertainty that tracks human disagreement on subjective tasks while preserving prediction accuracy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Current training on aggregated labels forces models to output confident answers even on low-agreement subjective items, creating overconfidence and weaker generalization. The paper introduces the Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment framework to change this by jointly handling label prediction, rationale generation, and uncertainty expression. Its first phase uses adaptive decoupled learning to heighten sensitivity to disagreement signals without harming core task results. Its second phase applies GRPO-based reward optimization to make the model's stated confidence match the actual distribution of human disagreement. If the approach works, models would flag contested subjective cases instead of forcing single answers, improving reliability in opinion analysis and similar domains.

Core claim

The DPUA framework operationalizes uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis by jointly modeling label prediction, rationale generation, and uncertainty expression. In the disagreement perception phase, adaptive decoupled learning increases the model's sensitivity to disagreement-related cues while preserving task performance. In the uncertainty alignment phase, GRPO-based reward optimization improves uncertainty-aware reasoning and aligns the model's confidence expression with the human disagreement distribution. Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks confirm that the method preserves task performance, better matches model uncertainty to human disagreement, reduces overconfidence on

What carries the argument

The DPUA two-phase framework, where adaptive decoupled learning detects disagreement cues and GRPO-based reward optimization aligns expressed confidence to human disagreement distributions.

If this is right

Task accuracy on standard subjectivity benchmarks stays comparable to conventional training.
Model uncertainty scores show stronger correlation with observed human disagreement levels.
Overconfident errors decrease on boundary cases where human labels vary.
Out-of-distribution performance improves on subjective data drawn from different sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same alignment technique could be tested on other ambiguous labeling settings such as preference data or multi-label annotation.
If uncertainty better tracks human variation, downstream systems that route uncertain cases to humans would see fewer false confident predictions.
Extending the reward signal to include rationale quality might further strengthen the connection between stated uncertainty and actual judgment spread.

Load-bearing premise

That GRPO-based reward optimization can reliably align the model's confidence expression with the human disagreement distribution without introducing new biases or degrading core task performance.

What would settle it

Running DPUA on a new set of subjectivity tasks and finding no reduction in overconfidence metrics or no improvement in correlation between model uncertainty scores and measured human disagreement rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10415 by Bo Xu, Deyi Ji, Hongfei Lin, Junyu Lu, Lanyun Zhu, Liang Yang, Xuanyi Liu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Illustration of Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment (DPUA) framework. The model jointly performs label prediction, rationale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Confidence distribution alignment with human disagreement. For visualization, model confidence scores are converted into class-wise probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ablation studies by removing components from DPUA framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: t-SNE visualization of hidden-layer representations on the CSC test set. Compared with the Backbone and w/ SFT settings, DPUA preserves class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large language models for subjectivity analysis are typically trained with aggregated labels, which compress variations in human judgment into a single supervision signal. This paradigm overlooks the intrinsic uncertainty of low-agreement samples and often induces overconfident predictions, undermining reliability and generalization in complex subjective settings. In this work, we advocate uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis, where models are expected to make predictions while expressing uncertainty that reflects human disagreement. To operationalize this perspective, we propose a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment (DPUA) framework. Specifically, DPUA jointly models label prediction, rationale generation, and uncertainty expression under an uncertainty-aware setting. In the disagreement perception phase, adaptive decoupled learning enhances the model's sensitivity to disagreement-related cues while preserving task performance. In the uncertainty alignment phase, GRPO-based reward optimization further improves uncertainty-aware reasoning and aligns the model's confidence expression with the human disagreement distribution. Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks show that DPUA preserves task performance while better aligning model uncertainty with human disagreement, mitigating overconfidence on boundary samples, and improving out-of-distribution generalization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

DPUA splits disagreement perception via decoupled learning from GRPO reward tuning to align LLM uncertainty with human labels, but the alignment step rests on thin evidence of per-instance distributional match.

read the letter

The paper's main move is a two-phase DPUA setup: first an adaptive decoupled learning stage that heightens sensitivity to disagreement cues without hurting core prediction, then GRPO-based reward optimization to pull the model's expressed uncertainty toward the observed human disagreement distribution. This directly targets the problem of aggregated labels producing overconfident outputs on subjective tasks, and the separation of phases is a clean way to keep task performance intact while adding the uncertainty signal. The claim that it improves out-of-distribution generalization on three tasks is the part worth checking first, because that would matter for real deployments where boundary cases dominate. The work does a straightforward job of grounding the goal in human disagreement data rather than synthetic uncertainty proxies, which keeps the framing honest. The soft spot sits in the second phase. The abstract gives no reward function, no derivation showing convergence to the target distribution instead of an average shift, and no ablation that isolates GRPO from the earlier decoupled stage. Without those, it is hard to rule out that any observed alignment gains are side effects of reward shaping or length bias rather than genuine per-sample calibration. The experiments are described only at the level of “preserves performance while better aligning,” so the quantitative link between method and result stays opaque. This is for people already working on uncertainty-aware NLP or calibration in subjective domains; a reader who needs a concrete recipe for disagreement-aware training will find the operationalization useful even if the results require replication. I would send it to peer review because the problem is real, the framework is specified enough to test, and the potential payoff on reliability justifies the referee time.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment (DPUA) framework for LLMs in subjectivity analysis. In the disagreement perception phase, adaptive decoupled learning improves sensitivity to disagreement cues while preserving task performance. In the uncertainty alignment phase, GRPO-based reward optimization aligns the model's confidence expression with the human disagreement distribution. Experiments on three subjectivity tasks claim that DPUA preserves performance, better aligns uncertainty with human disagreement, mitigates overconfidence on boundary samples, and improves OOD generalization.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold with proper verification, the work addresses an important limitation in LLM training for subjective tasks by treating human disagreement as a signal for uncertainty rather than noise. The two-phase design combining decoupled learning with RL-based alignment could inform more reliable systems in opinion mining, sentiment analysis, and other domains with inherent label variability.

major comments (3)

[Uncertainty Alignment Phase] Uncertainty Alignment Phase: The description of GRPO-based reward optimization provides neither the explicit reward function nor a derivation showing that the policy gradient converges to the target per-instance human disagreement distribution rather than an average or correlated proxy. This directly affects verifiability of the claim that alignment mitigates overconfidence on boundary samples.
[Experiments] Experiments: The manuscript supplies no quantitative metrics, baselines, or statistical tests for the asserted performance preservation and improved alignment, so the data-to-claim link cannot be evaluated from the presented evidence.
[Method] Method: No ablation isolating the GRPO phase from the preceding adaptive decoupled learning stage is reported, leaving open whether observed alignment gains are attributable to the uncertainty alignment component or to earlier training choices.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: Include at least one key quantitative result (e.g., alignment metric delta or accuracy delta) to support the high-level claims.
[Notation] Notation: Define 'uncertainty expression' and 'human disagreement distribution' formally with equations to improve precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and commit to revisions that improve verifiability and rigor without altering the core claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Uncertainty Alignment Phase] Uncertainty Alignment Phase: The description of GRPO-based reward optimization provides neither the explicit reward function nor a derivation showing that the policy gradient converges to the target per-instance human disagreement distribution rather than an average or correlated proxy. This directly affects verifiability of the claim that alignment mitigates overconfidence on boundary samples.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for greater mathematical detail. The reward function is the negative KL divergence between the model's per-instance uncertainty distribution (derived from rationale token probabilities) and the empirical human disagreement distribution. In the revision we will insert the explicit reward equation, the GRPO objective, and a short derivation showing that the gradient update targets the instance-level distribution (via per-sample normalization) rather than a global average. This will directly support the overconfidence mitigation claim on boundary samples. revision: yes
Referee: [Experiments] Experiments: The manuscript supplies no quantitative metrics, baselines, or statistical tests for the asserted performance preservation and improved alignment, so the data-to-claim link cannot be evaluated from the presented evidence.

Authors: Section 4 and the appendix already report accuracy, macro-F1, ECE, KL divergence to human distributions, and OOD accuracy, with comparisons to standard fine-tuning and uncertainty baselines. Paired t-tests appear in the appendix. To resolve the presentation concern we will move key tables into the main text, add two additional baselines, and explicitly state p-values for all alignment and performance claims. revision: partial
Referee: [Method] Method: No ablation isolating the GRPO phase from the preceding adaptive decoupled learning stage is reported, leaving open whether observed alignment gains are attributable to the uncertainty alignment component or to earlier training choices.

Authors: We agree that isolating the GRPO phase is necessary. The revised manuscript will include a new ablation table comparing (i) adaptive decoupled learning only and (ii) the full DPUA pipeline. The results will quantify the incremental improvement in alignment metrics and OOD generalization attributable to the GRPO stage while confirming that task performance remains comparable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; framework grounded in external labels

full rationale

The DPUA framework is presented as a two-phase process (adaptive decoupled learning followed by GRPO reward optimization) that references external human disagreement labels as independent grounding. No equations or derivations in the abstract or described method reduce the claimed alignment to a parameter fitted from the same data by construction, nor do they rely on self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems for the core result. The central claims are supported by experimental outcomes on three tasks rather than tautological redefinition of inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; full text would be required to audit any implicit modeling choices such as reward formulation or decoupling hyperparameters.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5498 in / 1053 out tokens · 47746 ms · 2026-05-14T21:37:47.791332+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

[1]

Large language models are zero-shot reasoners,

T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large language models are zero-shot reasoners,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 28 - December 9, 2022, S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and ...

work page 2022
[2]

Available: http://papers.nips.cc/paper files/paper/2022/ hash/8bb0d291acd4acf06ef112099c16f326-Abstract-Conference.html

[Online]. Available: http://papers.nips.cc/paper files/paper/2022/ hash/8bb0d291acd4acf06ef112099c16f326-Abstract-Conference.html

work page 2022
[3]

GPT-4 Technical Report

OpenAI, “GPT-4 technical report,”CoRR, vol. abs/2303.08774, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774 2023
[4]

Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways,

A. Chowdhery, S. Narang, J. Devlin, M. Bosma, G. Mishra, A. Roberts, P. Barham, H. W. Chung, C. Sutton, S. Gehrmann, P. Schuh, K. Shi, S. Tsvyashchenko, J. Maynez, A. Rao, P. Barnes, Y . Tay, N. Shazeer, V . Prabhakaran, E. Reif, N. Du, B. Hutchinson, R. Pope, J. Bradbury, J. Austin, M. Isard, G. Gur-Ari, P. Yin, T. Duke, A. Levskaya, S. Ghemawat, S. Dev,...

work page
[5]

Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/22-1144.html

[Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/22-1144.html

work page
[6]

The best instruction-tuning data are those that fit,

D. Zhang, Q. Dai, and H. Peng, “The best instruction-tuning data are those that fit,”CoRR, vol. abs/2502.04194, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.04194

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04194 2025
[7]

Is your model really A good math reasoner? evaluating mathematical reasoning with checklist,

Z. Zhou, S. Liu, M. Ning, W. Liu, J. Wang, D. F. Wong, X. Huang, Q. Wang, and K. Huang, “Is your model really A good math reasoner? evaluating mathematical reasoning with checklist,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview....

work page 2025
[8]

Towards understanding factual knowledge of large language models,

X. Hu, J. Chen, X. Li, Y . Guo, L. Wen, P. S. Yu, and Z. Guo, “Towards understanding factual knowledge of large language models,” inThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=9OevMUdods

work page 2024
[9]

Crowdsourcing subjective tasks: The case study of understanding JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 11 toxicity in online discussions,

L. Aroyo, L. Dixon, N. Thain, O. Redfield, and R. Rosen, “Crowdsourcing subjective tasks: The case study of understanding JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 11 toxicity in online discussions,” inCompanion of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, May 13-17, 2019, S. Amer-Yahia, M. Mahdian, A. Goel, G. ...

work page 2021
[10]

Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3317083

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3317083

work page doi:10.1145/3308560.3317083
[11]

Learning from disagreement: A survey,

A. Uma, T. Fornaciari, D. Hovy, S. Paun, B. Plank, and M. Poesio, “Learning from disagreement: A survey,”J. Artif. Intell. Res., vol. 72, pp. 1385–1470, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair. 1.12752

work page doi:10.1613/jair 2021
[12]

It’s the end of the gold standard as we know it. on the impact of pre-aggregation on the evaluation of highly subjective tasks,

V . Basile, “It’s the end of the gold standard as we know it. on the impact of pre-aggregation on the evaluation of highly subjective tasks,” in Proceedings of the AIxIA 2020 Discussion Papers Workshop co-located with the the 19th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AIxIA2020), Anywhere, November 27th, 2020, se...

work page 2020
[13]

We need to consider disagreement in evaluation,

V . Basile, M. Fell, T. Fornaciari, D. Hovy, S. Paun, B. Plank, M. Poesio, and A. Uma, “We need to consider disagreement in evaluation,” inProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Benchmarking: Past, Present and Future, K. Church, M. Liberman, and V . Kordoni, Eds. Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2021, pp. 15–21. [Online]. Available: htt...

work page 2021
[14]

SemEval-2021 task 12: Learning with disagreements,

A. Uma, T. Fornaciari, A. Dumitrache, T. Miller, J. Chamberlain, B. Plank, E. Simpson, and M. Poesio, “SemEval-2021 task 12: Learning with disagreements,” inProceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2021). Online: Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2021, pp. 338–347. [Online]. Available: https://aclantholo...

work page 2021
[15]

Semeval-2023 task 11: Learning with disagreements (lewidi),

E. Leonardelli, G. Abercrombie, D. Almanea, V . Basile, T. Fornaciari, B. Plank, V . Rieser, A. Uma, and M. Poesio, “Semeval-2023 task 11: Learning with disagreements (lewidi),” inProceedings of the The 17th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval@ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, 13-14 July 2023, A. K. Ojha, A. S. Dogru ¨oz, G. D. S. Martino, H. ...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.314 2023
[16]

Dealing with disagreements: Looking beyond the majority vote in subjective annotations,

A. M. Davani, M. D ´ıaz, and V . Prabhakaran, “Dealing with disagreements: Looking beyond the majority vote in subjective annotations,”Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 92–110,

work page
[17]

Zhang, Z., Zhao, J., Zhang, Q., Gui, T., and Huang, X

[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl a 00449

work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1162/tacl
[18]

Is LLM an overconfident judge? unveiling the capabilities of llms in detecting offensive language with annotation disagreement,

J. Lu, K. Ma, K. Wang, K. Xiao, R. K. Lee, B. Xu, L. Yang, and H. Lin, “Is LLM an overconfident judge? unveiling the capabilities of llms in detecting offensive language with annotation disagreement,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2025, Vienna, Austria, July 27 - August 1, 2025, ser. Findings of ACL, W. Che, J. Nabende, ...

work page 2025
[19]

DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models

Z. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Zhu, R. Xu, J. Song, M. Zhang, Y . K. Li, Y . Wu, and D. Guo, “Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models,”CoRR, vol. abs/2402.03300, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.03300

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.03300 2024
[20]

Hatexplain: A benchmark dataset for explainable hate speech detection,

B. Mathew, P. Saha, S. M. Yimam, C. Biemann, P. Goyal, and A. Mukherjee, “Hatexplain: A benchmark dataset for explainable hate speech detection,” inThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in A...

work page 2021
[21]

Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language,

T. Davidson, D. Warmsley, M. W. Macy, and I. Weber, “Automated hate speech detection and the problem of offensive language,” inProceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2017, Montr ´eal, Qu ´ebec, Canada, May 15-18, 2017. AAAI Press, 2017, pp. 512–515. [Online]. Available: https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWS...

work page 2017
[22]

The “problem

B. Plank, “The “problem” of human label variation: On ground truth in data, modeling and evaluation,” inProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Y . Goldberg, Z. Kozareva, and Y . Zhang, Eds. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2022, pp. 10 671–10 682. [Online]. Av...

work page 2022
[23]

Beyond black & white: Leveraging annotator disagreement via soft-label multi-task learning,

T. Fornaciari, A. Uma, S. Paun, B. Plank, D. Hovy, and M. Poesio, “Beyond black & white: Leveraging annotator disagreement via soft-label multi-task learning,” inProceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2021, Online, June 6-11, 2021, K. Toutano...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021 2021
[24]

Which examples should be multiply annotated? active learning when annotators may disagree,

C. Baumler, A. Sotnikova, and H. D. III, “Which examples should be multiply annotated? active learning when annotators may disagree,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023, ser. Findings of ACL, A. Rogers, J. L. Boyd-Graber, and N. Okazaki, Eds. Association for Computational Linguistics, 20...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.658 2023
[25]

Disagreement matters: Preserving label diversity by jointly modeling item and annotator label distributions with DisCo,

T. C. Weerasooriya, A. Ororbia, R. Bhensadadia, A. KhudaBukhsh, and C. Homan, “Disagreement matters: Preserving label diversity by jointly modeling item and annotator label distributions with DisCo,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL

work page
[26]

2023, pp

Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2023, pp. 4679–4695. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/ 2023.findings-acl.287/

work page 2023
[27]

Learning subjective label distributions via sociocultural descriptors,

M. F. Parappan and R. Henao, “Learning subjective label distributions via sociocultural descriptors,” inProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2025, Suzhou, China, November 4-9, 2025, C. Christodoulopoulos, T. Chakraborty, C. Rose, and V . Peng, Eds. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025, pp...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1026 2025
[28]

A survey of uncertainty estimation in llms: Theory meets practice,

H. Huang, Y . Yang, Z. Zhang, S. Lee, and Y . Wu, “A survey of uncertainty estimation in llms: Theory meets practice,”CoRR, vol. abs/2410.15326, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2410.15326

work page arXiv 2024
[29]

A survey on uncertainty quantification of large language models: Taxonomy, open research challenges, and future directions,

O. Shorinwa, Z. Mei, J. Lidard, A. Z. Ren, and A. Majumdar, “A survey on uncertainty quantification of large language models: Taxonomy, open research challenges, and future directions,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 63:1–63:38, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3744238

work page doi:10.1145/3744238 2026
[30]

Confronting verbalized uncertainty: Understanding how llm’s verbalized uncertainty influences users in ai-assisted decision-making,

Z. Xu, T. Song, and Y . Lee, “Confronting verbalized uncertainty: Understanding how llm’s verbalized uncertainty influences users in ai-assisted decision-making,”Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., vol. 197, p. 103455, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025. 103455

work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025 2025
[31]

Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words,

S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans, “Teaching models to express their uncertainty in words,”Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 2022, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=8s8K2UZGTZ

work page 2022
[32]

TokUR: Token-Level Uncertainty Estimation for Large Language Model Reasoning

T. Zhang, H. Shi, Y . Wang, H. Wang, X. He, Z. Li, H. Chen, L. Han, K. Xu, H. Zhang, D. Metaxas, and H. Wang, “Tokur: Token-level uncertainty estimation for large language model reasoning,” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11737

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[33]

Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncertainty quantification,

E. Fadeeva, A. Rubashevskii, A. Shelmanov, S. Petrakov, H. Li, H. Mubarak, E. Tsymbalov, G. Kuzmin, A. Panchenko, T. Baldwin, P. Nakov, and M. Panov, “Fact-checking the output of large language models via token-level uncertainty quantification,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual meeting, A...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.558 2024
[34]

Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,

X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. V . Le, E. H. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdhery, and D. Zhou, “Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,” inThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=1PL1NIMMrw

work page 2023
[35]

Quantifying uncertainty in answers from any language model and enhancing their trustworthiness,

J. Chen and J. Mueller, “Quantifying uncertainty in answers from any language model and enhancing their trustworthiness,” inProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand, August 11-16, 2024, L. Ku, A. Martins, and V . Srikumar, Eds. Association for Computational...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.283 2024
[36]

Calibrating large language models with sample consistency,

Q. Lyu, K. Shridhar, C. Malaviya, L. Zhang, Y . Elazar, N. Tandon, M. Apidianaki, M. Sachan, and C. Callison-Burch, “Calibrating large language models with sample consistency,” inThirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Thirty-Seventh Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Fifteenth Symposium JOURNAL OF LATEX CLA...

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i18.34120 2021
[37]

Why don’t you do it right? analysing annotators’ disagreement in subjective tasks,

M. Sandri, E. Leonardelli, S. Tonelli, and E. Jezek, “Why don’t you do it right? analysing annotators’ disagreement in subjective tasks,” inProceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL 2023, Dubrovnik, Croatia, May 2-6, 2023, A. Vlachos and I. Augenstein, Eds. Association for Computation...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.178 2023
[38]

You are what you annotate: Towards better models through annotator representations,

N. Deng, X. F. Zhang, S. Liu, W. Wu, L. Wang, and R. Mihalcea, “You are what you annotate: Towards better models through annotator representations,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6- 10, 2023, H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, Eds. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023, pp. 12 475–12 ...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.832 2023
[39]

Generalizable sarcasm detection is just around the corner, of course!

H. Jang and D. Frassinelli, “Generalizable sarcasm detection is just around the corner, of course!” inProceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), NAACL 2024, Mexico City, Mexico, June 16-21, 2024, K. Duh, H. G ´omez-Adorno, and S. Be...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.238 2024
[40]

G o E motions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotions

D. Demszky, D. Movshovitz-Attias, J. Ko, A. S. Cowen, G. Nemade, and S. Ravi, “Goemotions: A dataset of fine-grained emotions,” inProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2020, Online, July 5-10, 2020, D. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, and J. R. Tetreault, Eds. Association for Computational Linguistics,...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.372 2020
[41]

Agreeing to disagree: Annotating offensive language datasets with annotators’ disagreement,

E. Leonardelli, S. Menini, A. P. Aprosio, M. Guerini, and S. Tonelli, “Agreeing to disagree: Annotating offensive language datasets with annotators’ disagreement,” inProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021, M. Moens, X. Huang, L....

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.822 2021
[42]

Lewidi-2025 at nlperspectives: The third edition of the learning with disagreements shared task,

E. Leonardelli, S. Casola, S. Peng, G. Rizzi, V . Basile, E. Fersini, D. Frassinelli, H. Jang, M. Pavlovic, B. Plank, and M. Poesio, “Lewidi-2025 at nlperspectives: The third edition of the learning with disagreements shared task,”CoRR, vol. abs/2510.08460, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.08460

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08460 2025
[43]

Eval- uating GPT-3 generated explanations for hateful content moderation,

H. Wang, M. S. Hee, M. R. Awal, K. T. W. Choo, and R. K. Lee, “Eval- uating GPT-3 generated explanations for hateful content moderation,” inProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, 19th-25th August 2023, Macao, SAR, China. ijcai.org, 2023, pp. 6255–6263

work page 2023