LPI-RIT at LeWiDi-2025: Improving Distributional Predictions via Metadata and Loss Reweighting with DisCo

The Learning With Disagreements (LeWiDi) 2025 shared task is to model annotator disagreement through soft label distribution prediction and perspectivist evaluation, modeling annotators. We adapt DisCo (Distribution from Context), a neural architecture that jointly models item-level and annotator-level label distributions, and present detailed analysis and improvements. In this paper, we extend the DisCo by incorporating annotator metadata, enhancing input representations, and modifying the loss functions to capture disagreement patterns better. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate substantial improvements in both soft and perspectivist evaluation metrics across three datasets. We also conduct in-depth error and calibration analyses, highlighting the conditions under which improvements occur. Our findings underscore the value of disagreement-aware modeling and offer insights into how system components interact with the complexity of human-annotated data.

ProRefine: Inference-time Prompt Refinement with Textual Feedback

Agentic workflows, where multiple AI agents collaborate to accomplish complex tasks like reasoning or planning, are becoming increasingly prevalent. However, these workflows often suffer from error propagation and sub-optimal performance, largely due to poorly designed prompts that fail to effectively guide individual agents. This is a critical problem because it limits the reliability and scalability of these powerful systems. We introduce ProRefine, an innovative inference-time prompt optimization method that leverages textual feedback from large language models (LLMs) to address this challenge. ProRefine dynamically refines prompts for multi-step reasoning tasks without additional training or ground truth labels. Evaluated on five benchmark mathematical reasoning datasets, ProRefine significantly surpasses zero-shot Chain-of-Thought baselines by 3 to 37 percentage points. This approach not only boosts accuracy but also allows smaller models to match the performance of larger ones, highlighting its potential for efficient and scalable AI deployment, and democratizing access to high-performing AI.

Rater Cohesion and Quality from a Vicarious Perspective

Human feedback is essential for building human-centered AI systems across domains where disagreement is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Many disagreements, particularly in politically charged settings, arise because raters have opposing values or beliefs. Vicarious annotation is a method for breaking down disagreement by asking raters how they think others would annotate the data. In this paper, we explore the use of vicarious annotation with analytical methods for moderating rater disagreement. We employ rater cohesion metrics to study the potential influence of political affiliations and demographic backgrounds on raters' perceptions of offense. Additionally, we utilize CrowdTruth's rater quality metrics, which consider the demographics of the raters, to score the raters and their annotations. We study how the rater quality metrics influence the in-group and cross-group rater cohesion across the personal and vicarious levels.