🔗 Who cites «Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance»

11 papers of our library cite it (of the 149,439 whose bibliographies we read) · 4 with a page here, the most cited first · ← back to «Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance»

1. The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMsAnnual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)Nitay Calderon, Roi Reichart, Rotem Dror2025 · 52 citations
2. Disentangling Annotator Skill from Verifier Strictness in Cross-Verified Dialogue AnnotationAnnual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGDIAL)Zihao Tao, John A. Prado, Ignazio Steven LaManna, et al.2026
3. Gold Label Errors in the SciFact Benchmark: An LLM-Assisted Annotation AuditBioNLPJulien Sylvestre2026
4. LLM as a Morphological Disambiguator for Belarusian: A Preliminary StudySIGUL Joint Workshop with ELE, EURALI, and DCLRL: Towards Inclusivity and Equality: Language Resources and Technologies for Under-Resourced and Endangered LanguagesVladislav Poritski, Oksana Volchek, Ilia Afanasev2026

7 more papers of our library cite it; they have no page here yet.

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/nahum-2025-are-llms-better-than-reported/cited-by/