The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
SynthAVE: Scalable Synthetic Labeling for E-Commerce with LLM-Arena Validation
Abstract
Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for e-commerce attribute extraction requires labeled data representative across thousands of product types, attributes, and multiple languages. This combinatorial scale translates to millions of annotations, rendering human labeling prohibitively costly. While recent work has demonstrated synthetic label generation using LLMs, deploying such approaches at industrial scale requires integrated quality control mechanisms. We present SynthAVE, a large-scale benchmark for attribute-value verification spanning 12,726 products across 229 product types, 792 attributes, and 4 languages (Spanish, French, Italian, German). To validate synthetic labels at scale, we introduce a multi-LLM arena framework where each sample is evaluated by 21 judge configurations (7 model families $\times$ 3 prompts), with final labels determined via majority voting; disagreements with the synthetic label are expert-adjudicated and agreement cases are audited on a stratified sample. The majority vote ensemble agrees with expert labels at Cohen's $κ= 0.92$ (95.0% agreement), while individual judges agree with one another only moderately (Fleiss' $κ= 0.76$)--by design, since we select for diversity. This demonstrates that diverse models with varying individual judgments aggregate into highly reliable predictions, enabling cost-effective validation at scale while concentrating expert effort on the cases where it changes the label. We estimate the resulting label quality at 97.9%.
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
- Scarinci, A., Negri, V., Impata, B., Khan, S., Martinez, V., & Federico, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2607.07469
- 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