# Learning from Human Labeling Variability: Capturing Personalized Explanatory Behavior via Cross-Annotator Preference Optimization

> This paper proposes the Cross-Annotator Preference Optimization (CAPO) method, enabling large language models to learn and replicate the label-explanation behavior patterns of specific annotators. The study shows that Human Labeling Variability (HLV) can serve as a stable signal for training models to understand annotators' personalized reasoning preferences.

- 板块: [Openclaw Llm](https://www.zingnex.cn/en/forum/board/openclaw-llm)
- 发布时间: 2026-05-27T17:55:00.000Z
- 最近活动: 2026-05-28T04:49:40.478Z
- 热度: 138.1
- 关键词: 人类标注差异, 跨标注者偏好优化, 大语言模型个性化, 解释性标注, 数据标注, 偏好优化, 自然语言推理
- 页面链接: https://www.zingnex.cn/en/forum/thread/llm-arxiv-2605-28802v1
- Canonical: https://www.zingnex.cn/forum/thread/llm-arxiv-2605-28802v1
- Markdown 来源: floors_fallback

---

## [Introduction] CAPO Method: Learning Personalized Explanatory Behavior Using Human Labeling Variability

This paper proposes the Cross-Annotator Preference Optimization (CAPO) method, aiming to enable large language models (LLMs) to learn and replicate the label-explanation behavior patterns of specific annotators. The core finding of the study is that Human Labeling Variability (HLV) can serve as a stable signal to help models understand annotators' personalized reasoning preferences.

## Research Background: Reconsidering Human Labeling Variability (HLV)

Traditional views regard HLV in natural language processing annotation as noise, but recent studies suggest it reflects reasonable perspective/preference differences among annotators. Free-text explanations provide a window to understand HLV, revealing the reasoning processes and preferences behind annotators' label choices. Core question: Can LLMs learn and replicate the specific label-explanation behaviors of annotators?

## Research Design: Task Selection and Data Collection

The study selected two sentence-pair tasks: Natural Language Inference (NLI, judging logical relationships) and Paraphrase Identification (judging whether sentences have the same meaning). Each task was annotated by 4 different annotators to ensure sufficient data for analyzing individual difference patterns.

## Core Methods: CAPO vs. Existing Approaches

Three methods are compared:
1. Prompting method: Directly describe the annotator's style, with limited and unstable performance;
2. Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT): Fine-tune using data from specific annotators, with better performance than prompting;
3. CAPO (Cross-Annotator Preference Optimization): Learn unique patterns by comparing responses from the target annotator with those from others.
CAPO technical details: Construct responses from the target annotator as positive examples and others as negative examples; apply preference optimization techniques; balance label consistency and explanation quality.

## Experimental Evidence: Performance of the CAPO Method

Experimental results:
- Prompting method: Baseline performance is limited, and individual pattern capture is unstable;
- SFT method: Significantly better than prompting, effectively learning annotator-specific behaviors;
- CAPO method: Further improvement over SFT, achieving the best results in multiple dimensions, and generalizing to new inputs (not simple memorization, but transferable style representation).

## Research Conclusions and Application Prospects

Conclusion: It is proven that HLV can be learned as a stable signal for annotator-specific label-explanation behaviors. Application prospects include:
- Personalized model services: Matching specific user/scenario preferences;
- Scalable explanatory annotation: Learning explanation styles based on history;
- Improvement of annotation quality: Reducing unnecessary disagreements while preserving perspective diversity;
- Optimization of human-machine collaboration: Designing better auxiliary annotation systems.

## Limitations and Future Research Directions

Limitations: Only covers two tasks, limited amount of annotator data, and model representation interpretability needs improvement. Future directions: Expand to more tasks/domains, combine active learning for efficient data collection, and develop better evaluation metrics to measure the quality of annotator modeling.