Optimizing LLM Annotation of Classroom Discourse through Multi-Agent Orchestration
arXiv AIArchived Mar 17, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2603.13353v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as scalable tools for annotating educational data, including classroom discourse, interaction logs, and qualitative learning artifacts. Their ability to rapidly summarize instructional interactions and assign rubric-aligned labels has fueled optimism about reducing the cost and time associated with expert human annotation. However, growing evidence suggests that single-pass LLM outputs remain
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 8 Mar 2026]
Optimizing LLM Annotation of Classroom Discourse through Multi-Agent Orchestration
Bakhtawar Ahtisham, Kirk Vanacore, Rene F. Kizilcec
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly positioned as scalable tools for annotating educational data, including classroom discourse, interaction logs, and qualitative learning artifacts. Their ability to rapidly summarize instructional interactions and assign rubric-aligned labels has fueled optimism about reducing the cost and time associated with expert human annotation. However, growing evidence suggests that single-pass LLM outputs remain unreliable for high-stakes educational constructs that require contextual, pedagogical, or normative judgment, such as instructional intent or discourse moves. This tension between scale and validity sits at the core of contemporary education data science. In this work, we present and empirically evaluate a hierarchical, cost-aware orchestration framework for LLM-based annotation that improves reliability while explicitly modeling computational tradeoffs. Rather than treating annotation as a one-shot prediction problem, we conceptualize it as a multi-stage epistemic process comprising (1) an unverified single-pass annotation stage, in which models independently assign labels based on the rubric; (2) a self-verification stage, in which each model audits its own output against rubric definitions and revises its label if inconsistencies are detected; and (3) a disagreement-centric adjudication stage, in which an independent adjudicator model examines the verified labels and justifications and determines a final label in accordance with the rubric. This structure mirrors established human annotation workflows in educational research, where initial coding is followed by self-checking and expert resolution of disagreements.
Comments: Accepted for presentation at the Education Data Science Conference (EDS 2026), Stanford, USA, May 26-28, 2026. Extended abstract
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.13353 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2603.13353v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.13353
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Bakhtawar Ahtisham [view email]
[v1] Sun, 8 Mar 2026 16:51:03 UTC (857 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-03
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)