The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Large Language Models as Automatic Annotators and Annotation Adjudicators for Fine-Grained Opinion Analysis
Abstract
Fine-grained opinion analysis of text provides a detailed understanding of expressed sentiments and their targets. Although this level of detail is valuable, annotating opinions in datasets for model training requires considerable human effort and substantial cost, especially across diverse domains and real-world applications. To address this shortage of domain-specific labelled datasets, we explore the feasibility of LLMs as automatic annotators for fine-grained opinion analysis. We use a declarative annotation pipeline, an approach that reduces the variability of manual prompt engineering when using LLMs to identify fine-grained opinion spans in text. We also present a dedicated methodology for an LLM to adjudicate multiple labels and produce final annotations, benchmarked against exact, flexible, and element-wise variants of a rule-based voting aggregator. We trial the pipeline with models of different sizes for the Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) and Aspect-Category-Opinion-Sentiment (ACOS) analysis tasks. Our results reveal a critical performance bifurcation: LLMs are reliable at the span level yet struggle to reproduce the relational structures that connect those spans faithfully. This suggests that LLMs are better positioned as high-fidelity annotation assistants and data augmentation tools to expand fine-grained opinion-annotated datasets, rather than replacing human annotators entirely.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Metadata
- Authors
- Negi, G., Waskow, M., McCrae, J., Zayed, O., & Buitelaar, P.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2601.16800
- Type
- Preprint
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