Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper conducts a comprehensive audit of human annotation reporting in NLP research from 2018 to 2025, revealing significant gaps in the documentation of key annotation details across various tasks and venues. Utilizing a novel LLM-assisted extraction pipeline validated against a human-adjudicated gold standard, the authors analyze 2,667 annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, finding that while operational details have improved, critical factors affecting annotation validity are often omitted. The study establishes a unified taxonomy for annotation practices and offers recommendations to enhance the reliability and interpretability of human annotations in NLP.
Annotation reporting in NLP is improving, but critical details that affect validity are still frequently overlooked, especially in model evaluations.
Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.
