ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Improving LLM-based event extraction with annotation guidelines.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Event extraction constitutes a foundational task in information extraction, but reliance on laborious and expensive human annotations severely restricts the availability of training datasets. While recent works have explored Large Language Models (LLMs) as example-driven (or zero-shot) annotators, they are substantially outperformed by supervised techniques on structured extraction tasks, such as event detection and argument extraction, possibly on account of underspecified task instructions. In this work, we investigate to which extent LLMs can benefit from dataset-specific, detailed annotation guidelines that more precisely represent the dataset's underlying (human) annotation procedures. To this end, we propose a guideline-based, three-stage LLM annotation framework for event extraction that incorporates detailed event annotation guidelines and supports multiple LLM annotators to improve robustness. Using the comprehensive and well-documented ACE 2005 English Annotation Guidelines for Events as a reference document, we evaluate four LLMs across three guideline-compliant benchmark datasets. Our findings indicate that, depending on model choice, guideline specificity, and the dataset's relative label accuracy, employing detailed guidelines can considerably boost event extraction performance, gaining up to 6.7 F1 points over commonly used bare-minimum instructions, with particularly remarkable improvements for reasoning-based models. Furthermore, we demonstrate that augmenting existing datasets with LLM-generated argument annotations can improve argument extraction performance under soft-matching evaluation. Overall, our experiments emphasize the importance of annotation guidelines (as well as their specificity) for LLM-based annotations, providing valuable insights on leveraging LLMs as guideline-compliant annotators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.