ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks
Open accessAbstract
Many NLP applications require manual data annotations for a variety of tasks, notably to train classifiers or evaluate the performance of unsupervised models. Depending on the size and degree of complexity, the tasks may be conducted by crowd-workers on platforms such as MTurk as well as trained annotators, such as research assistants. Using a sample of 2,382 tweets, we demonstrate that ChatGPT outperforms crowd-workers for several annotation tasks, including relevance, stance, topics, and frames detection. Specifically, the zero-shot accuracy of ChatGPT exceeds that of crowd-workers for four out of five tasks, while ChatGPT's intercoder agreement exceeds that of both crowd-workers and trained annotators for all tasks. Moreover, the per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003 -- about twenty times cheaper than MTurk. These results show the potential of large language models to drastically increase the efficiency of text classification.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks.
“As LLMs continue to improve, they show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks [17,20].”
From Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena (2023) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners
Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.11916 · Cited by 2,013 · see citing works
An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results
Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619875149 · Cited by 1,027 · see citing works
Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Fulda, N., Gubler, J. R., Rytting, C., & Wingate, D. (2023) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2023.2 · Cited by 783 · see citing works
Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3
Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2218523120 · Cited by 559 · see citing works
Crowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data
Benoit, K. R., Conway, D., Lauderdale, B. E., Laver, M., & Mikhaylov, S. (2016) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055416000058 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Huang, F., Kwak, H., & An, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.07736 · Cited by 231
The Media Frames Corpus: Annotations of Frames Across Issues
Card, D., Boydstun, A. E., Gross, J. H., Resnik, P., & Smith, N. A. (2015) · doi:10.3115/v1/p15-2072 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
What Determines Inter-Coder Agreement in Manual Annotations? A Meta-Analytic Investigation
Bayerl, P. S., & Paul, K. I. (2011) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00074 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Content Moderation As a Political Issue: The Twitter Discourse Around Trump's Ban
Alizadeh, M., Gilardi, F., Hoes, E., Klüser, K. J., Kubli, M., & Marchal, N. (2022) · Journal of Quantitative Description Digital Media · doi:10.51685/jqd.2022.023 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Self-citationLarge Language Models as Corporate LobbyistsPreprint
Nay, J. J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4316615 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Desmond, Michael, Evelyn Duesterwald, Kristina Brimijoin, Michelle Brachman and Qian Pan. 2021. Semi-automated data labeling. In NeurIPS 2020 Competition and Demonstration Track . PMLR pp. 156-169.
- Emerson, Guy, Natalie Schluter, Gabriel Stanovsky, Ritesh Kumar, Alexis Palmer, Nathan Schneider, Siddharth Singh and Shyam Ratan, eds. 2022. Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2022) . Seattle: Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Kuzman, Taja, Igor Mozetiˇ c and Nikola Ljubeši´ c. 2023. 'ChatGPT: Beginning of an End of Manual Linguistic Data Annotation? Use Case of Automatic Genre Identification.' arXiv e-prints pp. arXiv-2303.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7 · Cited by 1,409 · see citing works
Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?
Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00502 · Cited by 585 · see citing works
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888 · see citing works
“As LLMs continue to improve, they show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks [14, 17].”
BackgroundOpen Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., Freedman, R., Korbak, T., Lindner, D., Freire, P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15217 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Content moderation by LLM: from accuracy to legitimacy
Huang, T. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11328-1 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
UMBRELA: UMbrela is the (Open-Source Reproduction of the) Bing RELevance Assessor
Upadhyay, S., Pradeep, R., Thakur, N., Craswell, N., & Lin, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.06519 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agents
Piatti, G., Jin, Z., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Schölkopf, B., Sachan, M., & Mihalcea, R. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-3548 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
LP-MusicCaps: LLM-Based Pseudo Music Captioning
Doh, S., Choi, K., Lee, J., & Nam, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16372 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Chen, Y., Zhang, C., Luo, D., D'Haro, L. F., Tan, R. T., & Li, H. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.14646
- Authors
- Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gilardi, Fabrizio
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 30
- Pages
- e2305016120-e2305016120
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2303.15056
- PMC
- PMC10372638
- OpenAlex
- W4384662964
- Cited by
- 1,207
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 448 · 2025: 356 · 2024: 277 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 562.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- European Commission (883121, HORIZON2020)
- European Research Council (883121)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, textual annotation, crowd workers, Amazon Mechanical Turk, automatic annotation, inter-coder agreement, annotation cost, stance detection, topic extraction, frame detection, tweets, news articles, text classification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
