A Comparative Study on Annotation Quality of Crowdsourcing and LLm Via Label Aggregation

Abstract

Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can outperform crowdsourcing on the data annotation task is attracting interest recently. Some works verified this issue with the average performance of individual crowd workers and LLM workers on some specific NLP tasks by collecting new datasets. However, on the one hand, existing datasets for the studies of annotation quality in crowdsourcing are not yet utilized in such evaluations, which potentially provide reliable evaluations from a different viewpoint. On the other hand, the quality of these aggregated labels is crucial because, when utilizing crowdsourcing, the estimated labels aggregated from multiple crowd labels to the same instances are the eventually collected labels. Therefore, in this paper, we first investigate which existing crowdsourcing datasets can be used for a comparative study and create a benchmark. We then compare the quality between individual crowd labels and LLM labels and make the evaluations on the aggregated labels. In addition, we propose a Crowd-LLM hybrid label aggregation method and verify the performance. We find that adding LLM labels from good LLMs to existing crowdsourcing datasets can enhance the quality of the aggregated labels of the datasets, which is also higher than the quality of LLM labels themselves.