Hinrich Schutze
Publications
Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Comparing Human and LLM Annotation in Active Learning for Hostility Detection
Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances from a short prompt at negligible cost. This raises two questions for active learning (AL): can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be labelled at once? We investigate both questions on a new dataset of 277,902 German political TikTok comments (25,974 LLM-labelled, 5,000 human-annotated), comparing seven annotation strategies across four encoders to detect anti-immigrant hostility. A classifier trained on 25,974 GPT-5.2 labels (\$43) achieves comparable F1-Macro to one trained on 3,800 human annotations (\$316). Active learning offers little advantage over random sampling in our pre-enriched pool and delivers lower F1 than full LLM annotation at the same cost. However, comparable aggregate F1 masks a systematic difference in error structure: LLM-trained classifiers over-predict the positive class relative to the human gold standard. This divergence concentrates in topically ambiguous discussions where the distinction between anti-immigrant hostility and policy critique is most subtle, suggesting that annotation strategy should be guided not by aggregate F1 alone but by the error profile acceptable for the target application.
With Argus Eyes: Assessing Retrieval Gaps via Uncertainty Scoring to Detect and Remedy Retrieval Blind Spots
Reliable retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems depend fundamentally on the retriever's ability to find relevant information. We show that neural retrievers used in RAG systems have blind spots, which we define as the failure to retrieve entities that are relevant to the query, but have low similarity to the query embedding. We investigate the training-induced biases that cause such blind spot entities to be mapped to inaccessible parts of the embedding space, resulting in low retrievability. Using a large-scale dataset constructed from Wikidata relations and first paragraphs of Wikipedia, and our proposed Retrieval Probability Score (RPS), we show that blind spot risk in standard retrievers (e.g., CONTRIEVER, REASONIR) can be predicted pre-index from entity embedding geometry, avoiding expensive retrieval evaluations. To address these blind spots, we introduce ARGUS, a pipeline that enables the retrievability of high-risk (low-RPS) entities through targeted document augmentation from a knowledge base (KB), first paragraphs of Wikipedia, in our case. Extensive experiments on BRIGHT, IMPLIRET, and RAR-B show that ARGUS achieves consistent improvements across all evaluated retrievers (averaging +3.4 nDCG@5 and +4.5 nDCG@10 absolute points), with substantially larger gains in challenging subsets. These results establish that preemptively remedying blind spots is critical for building robust and trustworthy RAG systems (Code and Data).
Relational Linearity is a Predictor of Hallucinations
Hallucination is a central failure mode in large language models (LLMs). We focus on hallucinations of answers to questions like: "Which instrument did Glenn Gould play?", but we ask these questions for synthetic entities that are unknown to the model. Surprisingly, we find that medium-size models like Gemma-7B-IT frequently hallucinate, i.e., they have difficulty recognizing that the hallucinated fact is not part of their knowledge. We hypothesize that an important factor in causing these hallucinations is the linearity of the relation: linear relations tend to be stored more abstractly, making it difficult for the LLM to assess its knowledge; the facts of nonlinear relations tend to be stored more directly, making knowledge assessment easier. To investigate this hypothesis, we create SyntHal, a dataset of 6000 synthetic entities for six relations. In our experiments with four models, we determine, for each relation, the hallucination rate on SyntHal and also measure its linearity, using $Δ\cos$. We find a strong correlation ($r \in [.78,.82]$) between relational linearity and hallucination rate, providing evidence for our hypothesis that the underlying storage of triples of a relation is a factor in how well a model can self-assess its knowledge. This finding has implications for how to manage hallucination behavior and suggests new research directions for improving the representation of factual knowledge in LLMs.
Parallel Universes, Parallel Languages: A Comprehensive Study on LLM-based Multilingual Counterfactual Example Generation
Counterfactuals refer to minimally edited inputs that cause a model's prediction to change, serving as a promising approach to explaining the model's behavior. Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating English counterfactuals and demonstrate multilingual proficiency. However, their effectiveness in generating multilingual counterfactuals remains unclear. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on multilingual counterfactuals. We first conduct automatic evaluations on both directly generated counterfactuals in the target languages and those derived via English translation across six languages. Although translation-based counterfactuals offer higher validity than their directly generated counterparts, they demand substantially more modifications and still fall short of matching the quality of the original English counterfactuals. Second, we find the patterns of edits applied to high-resource European-language counterfactuals to be remarkably similar, suggesting that cross-lingual perturbations follow common strategic principles. Third, we identify and categorize four main types of errors that consistently appear in the generated counterfactuals across languages. Finally, we reveal that multilingual counterfactual data augmentation (CDA) yields larger model performance improvements than cross-lingual CDA, especially for lower-resource languages. Yet, the imperfections of the generated counterfactuals limit gains in model performance and robustness.