Joint Training Is Not Enough: Conditioned Cross-Granularity Training for Multimodal Document Understanding

The Mutual Reinforcement Effect (MRE) asks whether a fine, span-level and a coarse, document-level task help each other when one model handles both. We test it in multimodal document understanding on three corpora, two of receipts and one of scanned business forms, comparing single-task, joint and conditioned training, which puts one granularity's gold output in the other's prompt during training only. We build Doc-MRE, an annotation layer pairing gold field extraction (point) with four document-level facets (line), from a three-judge LLM committee under a pre-registration, validated by blind re-annotation. One predicate, fixed in advance: at a shared recipe, a regime reinforces if it beats the matched single-task model on both granularities. Mixed joint training, the arrangement prior MRE work assumes, reinforces on no corpus at the main scale: it is below both single-task models on CORD and trades one granularity for the other on the two others, as single-task tuning does. Conditioned training reinforces on two of the three, CORD (+0.5 point, +4.8 line) and the forms corpus (+7.2 point, +11.0 line), resolvably on the coarse side and directionally on the fine one, and trades on WildReceipt; at that recipe no alternative measurably beats it on either side anywhere. Two byte-identical-prompt controls separate content from format: shuffled conditioning destroys the coarse-side skill but costs the fine side far less, and a neutral-content control reproduces the whole fine-side gain on WildReceipt, which is therefore prompt structure but buys nothing resolvable on the other two. On the forms corpus conditioning buys collapse avoidance: mixed training and the neutral control both assign the majority semantic label to all 50 test documents; only conditioning recovers the gold distribution. Probes find the information decodable under every regime with no resolvable increase under conditioning.

LLM-as-a-Demographic: Whom Sociodemographic Prompting Helps, and Whom It Hurts

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

Beyond Reflection: Affirmation as a Promising Behavioral Marker Associated with Quality in Text-Based Counseling

While AI-assisted text-based counseling is gaining attention, it remains empirically unclear which counselor behaviors are associated with higher dialogue quality. Existing research often focuses heavily on Reflection, borrowing frameworks from Motivational Interviewing. To address this gap, we conduct a multi-layered analysis using KokoroChat, a large-scale Japanese text counseling dataset conducted by professional counselors and trainees, newly annotated with counselor strategy tags and client distress levels. Our results show that, under the quality indicators used in this study, Affirmation is more consistently associated with session quality than Reflection among the analyzed strategies. Cross-dataset transfer experiments further suggest that this quality signal can be observed to some extent on ESConv, an English dataset with non-expert supporters. These findings provide empirical implications for counselor training and emotional support system design. We release the additional KokoroChat annotations and experimental source code at https://github.com/UEC-InabaLab/BeyondReflection.

Definitional Sensitivity in Media Bias Detection: A Multi-Definition Dataset and Benchmark

Media bias detection relies on definitions and examples that specify what counts as bias, yet these specifications often vary across datasets or remain implicit, even when given the same name. Such variation makes it unclear whether models trained for the same bias category learn the same construct or different phenomena, a problem largely overlooked in prior work. We examine how definition choice affects bias annotation in a between-subjects experiment with 354 participants and a parallel evaluation with four LLMs. Participants and models rate six news articles across four bias categories using definitions that vary in conceptual framing and elaboration. Across 8,496 human and 28,800 LLM ratings, we find that the conceptual target of a definition drives annotation divergence, while construct-preserving elaboration does not: conceptual framing significantly shifts annotations for humans and does so even more strongly for LLMs. We discuss implications for construct specification in annotation protocols and prompt-based measurement, and consider how definitional sensitivity may propagate to downstream classification beyond media bias. We also release MUDD, the Multi-Definition Bias Detection Dataset.

Challenges in annotations by humans and LLMs: A case study of evaluative language

In this paper, we draw a comparison between linguists in training, a trained linguist, and annotations generated by large language models (LLMs) to find out if they struggle with complex linguistic phenomena in a similar way. For this purpose, we analyse evaluative language in spoken popular science discourse, with the example of a corpus of English TED talk transcripts. We focus on the Appraisal theory and its Attitude subsystem, including the categories (classes) of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation. In this context, Appraisal theory is an example of a highly subjective annotation task, making it a suitable example for the study of complex annotation challenges. First, we assess human annotations on a sentence level in specific scientific domains. Then, we develop three prompts and compare them for model performance for the automatic classification of Appraisal classes. We assess the performance of three LLMs using the best-performing prompt and finetune the model, reaching an F1-score of 0.77. We find that models perform best compared to annotations conducted by the trained linguist, while linguists in training do not reach high agreement scores. We conclude that LLMs can aid in complex annotation task resolution, opening new pathways for the complex theories annotated and analyzed in digital humanities studies.

Foundation-Assisted Active Learning for Object Detection Annotation

The annotation cost for remote sensing object detection is high, while existing active learning methods still face several challenges in object detection scenarios, including the coupling of localization and classification uncertainty, severe localization noise in the cold-start stage, and pseudo-diversity caused by high-recall candidate proposals. To address these issues, we propose a foundation-model-collaborative active learning and semi-automatic annotation framework for efficient construction of remote sensing object detection datasets. We build a dual-source mechanism consisting of a reference localization source (SA-source) based on UPN+SAM2 and a detector prediction source (OD-source), and further propose a Foundation-model-enhanced Dual-Source Uncertainty estimation to improve sample selection quality in the cold-start stage by jointly modeling localization consistency and classification confidence. Furthermore, we propose Object-Centric Diversity Sampling, which constructs object-level representations using DINOv2 features and SAM2 masks to improve sample coverage while suppressing pseudo-diversity. To address geometric noise in the semi-automatic annotation stage, we design Dual-Source Box Switching, which replaces noisy detector boxes with matched refined boxes from the SA-source, thereby reducing the manual burden of box refinement. Experiments on DIOR, HRSC2016, DOTAv2, and FAIR1M show that our method achieves superior or comparable results under most annotation budgets, with notably stronger cold-start sample efficiency in the low-budget regime.

TreeAgent: A Generalizable Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Bias Labeling in Forestry via Compiled Expert Rules and Vision-Language Models

Human-labeled data are widely used as reference annotations in ML, despite known variability across annotators in many expert-driven domains. In addition, expert annotation is slow, inconsistent, and remains a major bottleneck for scaling tasks like tree height bias classification in forestry remote sensing. We propose a multi-agent system (MAS) that orchestrates expert decision trees with Vision-Language Models (VLMs), treating the decision tree as a structural prior while VLMs perform localized semantic perception at individual nodes, with multi-agent voting to mitigate VLM stochasticity. We formalize a Decoupled Declarative Decision (D3) Framework that enables zero-modification generalization across diverse expert-defined decision structures. On a tree bias classification testbed, our framework outperforms supervised ML baselines and reduces the amount of expert labeling effort required. These results suggest that agentic orchestration of VLMs with expert priors can reproduce expert-defined labeling procedures at substantially lower annotation cost while maintaining interpretability.

Mask to Concept: Auto-Promptable SAM3 via Efficient Test-Time Concept Embedding Search for Few-Shot Annotation

Transforming foundation segmentation models from human-prompted tools into auto-promptable annotators is critical for scalable medical data annotation. Current methods commonly depend on external feature matchers or auxiliary networks to automate geometric prompting, but introducing architectural overhead and limiting performance scalability. Although SAM3 natively supports concept segmentation via reusable text prompts, its direct use in medical imaging is hindered by a lack of fine-grained clinical knowledge and the ambiguity of human-written descriptions. In this work, we propose Mask to Concept (M2C), an efficient framework that adapts SAM3 for medical few-shot annotation without external modules, parameter retraining, or manual text engineering. Using only a few labeled images, M2C enables SAM3 to automatically search for transferable visual concepts entirely within its frozen architecture: it initializes a learnable concept embedding, uses it to prompt segmentation, and updates the embedding by gradients of minimizing the concept segmentation error. We further introduce a Hybrid Uncertainty Estimation (HUE) module that calculates the prediction entropy and maps concept predictions back to the box prompts, measuring concept-geometry prompting inconsistency. Highly uncertain samples are flagged actively for human correction, and the corrected masks are then fed back to M2C to continuously search for more precise concept embeddings, forming a self-enhancing annotation loop with minimal expert effort. Experiments on medical segmentation benchmarks show that our method achieves SOTA few-shot segmentation performance and outstanding annotation efficiency, offering a practical and efficient pathway toward scalable medical image labeling. Codes are at https://github.com/Huster-Hq/M2C.

Introducing corpora Hlava Cor and Hlava AD: Human Label Variation in Coreference and Discourse Relations

As previous research on annotator disagreement in discourse phenomena has shown, understanding text coherence varies considerably from one individual to another. To explore this phenomenon, we created two corpora with multiple annotations of Czech texts, accompanied by annotators' explanations of their choices. The first corpus consists of 1,024 contexts annotated in parallel by three annotators. It captures differences in the identification of coreference across various text types and grammatical-semantic categories, including pronouns, full noun phrases, and anaphoric adverbials. The second corpus comprises 512 contexts, annotated in parallel by five annotators, and focuses on identifying discourse relations in attributive and non-attributive constructions. Both corpora achieve a comparable inter-annotator agreement of approximately 60-65%. For coreference annotation, agreement tends to be lower in cases where automatic coreference resolution models disagree, suggesting that when the models disagree, the examples tend to be more difficult or ambiguous for human annotators to interpret. The annotators' comments, both for coreference and discourse relations, further reveal differences in interpretation, varying levels of confidence in text understanding, and individual reading strategies.

Task Decomposition for Efficient Annotation

High-quality annotations of structured representations are expensive to collect over large corpora. Manual annotation of structure is laborious, and model-based annotation, although cheaper to generate, requires expensive validation and potentially significant supervision to ensure that the annotation quality is strong enough to be useful downstream. In traditional annotation workflows, annotation of each complete example is performed end-to-end by a single annotator. However, structured annotation is complex, and each aspect of the task represents a unique challenge with an associated inferential load for a given annotator. Modern annotation projects can incorporate heterogeneous groups of annotators, including both models and human annotators with varying domain and linguistic expertise. It remains unclear, however, how to redesign annotation tasks in this setting, where efforts are discriminately allocated across heterogeneous annotators with respect to distinct annotation challenges. We propose to decompose annotation tasks into sub-tasks in order to reduce the aggregate inferential load of annotation projects. Inspired by the notion of centers from centering theory, we introduce a formal model of inferential load based on the degrees of freedom in the space of valid annotations. Using this model, we show that identifying these centers (i.e. salient anchor entities realized by annotation sub-tasks) constrains the output space complexity, and decompositions which isolate and advance center identification reduce the aggregate inferential load. We provide guidelines for decomposing complex structured annotation tasks, supported by examples demonstrating improved cost-efficiency from our prior work. Finally, we present a procedure for allocating sub-tasks across annotators to maximize quality under a fixed budget.

Prague Dependency Treebank -- Consolidated 2.0: Enriching a Complex Annotation Scheme

The Prague Dependency Treebank framework is unique in its attempt to systematically include and link different layers of language, including a meaning representation with several types of inter-sentential phenomena, especially coreference and discourse relations. We present its second consolidated version (PDT-C 2.0), which concludes almost 30-years long project of sustained development of the resource to a uniformly and coherently annotated, genre-diversified, almost 4 million token language resource of Czech language, with accompanying fully compatible lexicons. In addition to continuous linguistic research, the richly linguistically annotated corpus is also widely used in international comparisons of the development of traditional and novel NLP tools as well as in conversions into other formalisms. The corpus and the trained parsers are available under the CC BY-NC-SA licence.

AwakeForest: An Interactive Geospatial Platform for Large-Scale Forest Imagery

Forest imagery analysis often involves multiple tightly coupled vision tasks, which must be performed under substantial variation in geographic regions, sensors, and acquisition conditions. However, practitioners often lack a unified tool that is geospatial-native, cloud-optimized, and ML-integrated for end-to-end workflows spanning annotation, prediction, visualization, and downstream analysis at scale. We present AwakeForest, an interactive end-to-end platform designed for large-scale forest imagery that integrates model-assisted inference, automatic annotation, and human-in-the-loop refinement within a single workflow. Our platform supports plug-and-play integration of pretrained models and enables scalable interaction with forest imagery ranging from standard aerial scenes to large orthomosaics that can span several gigabytes to hundreds of gigabytes. AwakeForest produces analysis-ready outputs that can be directly used for downstream analysis and to support iterative model and annotation updates on new scenes. We demonstrate the system on the PALMS dataset and illustrate how AwakeForest supports an end-to-end workflow for practical forest management and analysis.

A Resource for Enthymeme Detection in Controversial Political Discourse

Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation. We first revisit the definition of enthymemes and propose annotation guidelines anchored in Walton's argumentation schemes, offering a structured and constrained approach that nonetheless preserves room for the interpretive nature of the task. This contrasts with past resources, which tend to eliminate disagreement, obscuring its sources and preventing investigation of its potential benefits for model performance. We further propose a complexity analysis of the task, identifying where annotation imposes high cognitive load and may give rise to inconsistent annotation. Our preliminary experiments show that models trained on annotator disagreement outperform models trained on hard majority-vote labels. We close by reflecting on how structural openness in enthymeme definitions and guidelines enables the study of variation in subjective inferential processes for future resources and downstream NLP applications concerned with human inference.

Measuring Human Value Expression in Social Media Texts: Calibrated LLM Annotation and Encoder Transfer

Measuring subjective constructs in naturally occurring social media text requires annotation procedures that are theoretically grounded, empirically validated, and transferable to an encoder model for scalable prediction. Using non-English social media posts annotated according to Schwartz's theory of basic human values, we investigate how different LLMs, prompts, and instruction languages operationalize the expression of values in text. We argue that although texts may permit multiple plausible interpretations, theory-based value definitions can constrain interpretations and reduce spurious value attributions. Beyond precision, recall, and F1, we evaluate structural alignment between values, error structure, confidence-ambiguity relations, and annotation stability. We show that different LLMs produce different value interpretations. Iterative prompt calibration through error analysis reduces misattributions and improves alignment with expert annotations. We also derive targeted expert verification rules from recurrent error structures and use them during corpus annotation. Finally, we show that LLM annotations can be transferred to an encoder model through soft-label training, retaining theory-based value interpretations and information about uncertainty in value expression.

Measuring Cognitive Engagement in Collaborative Discourse with an Extended ICAP Framework: Comparing Human Annotation, In-Context Learning, and Reflective LLM Agents

Collaboration supports learning and problem-solving, but its effectiveness depends on cognitive engagement during discourse. This study applies an extended 7-point ICAP framework based on the Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive modes to characterize variation in cognitive engagement during collaborative dialogue. Engagement was coded by trained human annotators and compared with large language model (LLM)-based labeling approaches, including in-context learning (ICL), zero-shot prompting, and self-reflective agents. Interrater reliability among human annotators was robust across framework refinement stages (kappa = 0.906-0.998), higher than the moderate agreement observed for ICL-based annotation (kappa = 0.541-0.609). The human-refined framework improved agreement among human annotators (Delta kappa = 0.10), but produced only modest gains for ICL-based LLMs (Delta kappa less than 0.04). Agent-refined frameworks improved cross-model agreement but remained below the human-refined framework. These findings highlight the promise of agent-based approaches and the importance of continued interaction between theory-guided human annotation and LLM-based methods in future work.

From Self to Other: Evaluating Demographic Perspective-Taking in LLM Hate Speech Annotation

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

Manga109-v2026: Revisiting Manga109 Annotations for Modern Manga Understanding

Manga is a culturally distinctive multimodal medium and one of the most influential forms of Japanese popular culture. As AI systems increasingly target manga understanding, OCR, and translation, Manga109 has become a foundational dataset for manga-related AI research. However, the current Manga109 dataset contains transcription errors and coarse annotations, which do not align well with modern OCR and multimodal manga understanding tasks. In this work, we revisit the dialogue text annotations of Manga109 and identify five categories of annotation issues, including transcription errors, missing text regions, overlapping dialogue and onomatopoeia, and under-segmented speech balloons. To address these issues, we combine OCR-based issue detection and manual revision to construct Manga109-v2026, revising approximately 29,000 dialogue annotations. Our revisions better align Manga109 with modern OCR and multimodal manga understanding systems while preserving expressive structures characteristic of manga.

Refining and Reusing Annotation Guidelines for LLM Annotation

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable performance on zero-shot annotation tasks, they often struggle with the specialized conventions of gold-standard benchmarks. We propose the systematic reuse and refinement of annotation guidelines as an alignment mechanism, introducing an iterative moderation framework that simulates the early phases of annotation projects. We evaluate three hypotheses: (1) the efficacy of guideline integration, (2) the advantage of reasoning optimized models, and (3) the viability of moderation under minimal supervision. Testing across biomedical NER tasks (NCBI Disease, BC5CDR, BioRED) with three LLM families (GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek), our results empirically confirm all three hypotheses. While the iterative moderation framework shows good potential in effectively refining guidelines, our analysis also reveals substantial room for improvement.

Language Ideologies in a Multilingual Society: An LLM-based Analysis of Luxembourgish News Comments

Detecting language ideologies is a valuable yet complex task for understanding how identities are constructed through discourse. In Luxembourg's multicultural and multilingual society, language ideologies reflect more than simple preferences: they carry deep cultural and social meanings, shaping identities and social belonging. Following recent developments in applying Natural Language Processing tools to linguistics and social science, this paper explores the potential of large language models to assist in the detection of language ideologies. We manually annotate a corpus of user comments in Luxembourgish with predefined ideological categories and then evaluate the performance of large language models under varying prompt conditions to assess their ability to replicate these human annotations. Since Luxembourgish is a small language and poorly represented in the LLMs' training data, we also investigate whether machine-translating the data to high-resource languages increases performance on the ideology detection task. Our findings suggest that, while LLMs are not yet fully optimized for a multi-class ideological annotation task, they are practical tools to identify language ideological content.