Abstract
This paper explores utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution (CDEC) annotations and evaluates how they fare against human annotators with different levels of training. Specifically, we formulate CDEC as a multiclass classification problem on pairs of events that are represented as decontextualized sentences, and compare the predictions of GPT-4 with the judgment of fully trained annotators and crowdworkers on the same dataset. Our study indicates that GPT-4 with zero-shot learning outperformed crowd-workers by a large margin and exhibits a level of performance comparable to trained annotators. Upon closer analysis, GPT-4 also exhibits tendencies of being overly confident, and forcing annotation decisions even when such decisions are not warranted due to insufficient information. Our results have implications on how to perform complicated annotations such as CDEC in the age of LLMs, and show that the best way to acquire such annotations might be to combine the strengths of LLMs and trained human annotators in the annotation process, and using untrained or undertrained crowdworkers is no longer a viable option to acquire high-quality
data to advance the state of the art for such problems. We make our source and data publicly available.