The shift towards auto-labeling in NLP: A literature review on LLM-based methods


Abstract

Manual data annotation is a challenging and labor-intensive task for subjective NLP applications like healthcare, cyberbullying, and sentiment analysis, where contextual understanding is required. Annotated data is essential for training supervised Machine Learning (ML) models. With the growing demand for high-quality labeled datasets, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automatic data annotation (auto-labeling). This review aims to explore the use of LLMs in auto-labeling Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, propose a taxonomy categorizing LLMs' roles in annotation pipelines, highlight pressing challenges, and provide practical insights and recommendations for future research. We analyzed 34 peer-reviewed articles published between 2019 and 2025, focusing on LLM applications in auto-labeling tasks such as sentiment analysis and stance detection. The review examines model types, training and prompting strategies, and compares LLM-based auto-labeling to traditional human labeling methods. We introduce a taxonomy that identifies four key LLM roles in auto-labeling: DirectLabeler, PseudoLabeler, AssistantLabeler, and DataGenerator. Across different fine-tuning and prompting techniques, findings show that LLMs generally approach and do not surpass human-level accuracy, while offering significant speed and cost advantages. Closed-source models dominate by frequency, yet open-source alternatives like BERT remain important. Zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques are common due to their convenience, though fine-tuning yields better domain-specific results. Challenges include prompt sensitivity, limited domain generalization, and ethical considerations. The proposed taxonomy offers a structured framework to understand and develop LLM-based auto-labeling methods, with scope for future expansion as the field evolves. This highlighted the potential of LLMs to automate and enhance data labeling across NLP tasks. Based on the identified strengths and limitations, our recommendations emphasize domain adaptation, fine-tuning on diverse datasets, iterative prompt engineering, and privacy-conscious open-source usage. Our findings suggest that with continued advancements in research and careful deployment, LLMs are poised to improve annotation scalability and efficiency in NLP and beyond.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].