To Err Is Human; To Annotate, SILICON? Toward Robust Reproducibility in LLM Annotation

Abstract

Unstructured text data annotation is foundational to management research. LLMs offer a cost-effective and scalable alternative to human annotation, but they introduce a novel challenge: the annotator itself can be retired. Proprietary models undergo regular deprecation cycles, threatening long-term reproducibility. Hence, the ability to reproduce annotation results when the original model becomes unavailable, i.e., robust reproducibility, is a central methodological challenge for LLM-based annotation. Achieving robust reproducibility requires first controlling measurement error. We develop an analytical framework that decomposes measurement error into four sources: guideline-induced error from inconsistent annotation criteria, baseline-induced error from unreliable human references, prompt-induced error from suboptimal meta-instruction, and model-induced error from architectural differences across LLMs. We develop the SILICON workflow that instantiates the analytical framework, prescribing targeted interventions at each error source. Empirical validation across nine management research tasks confirms that these interventions reduce measurement error, and simulations show that the resulting error reduction yields more accurate downstream statistical estimates. With measurement error controlled, we address two further aspects of robust reproducibility. First, we propose a regression-based methodology to establish backup open-weight models, which are permanently accessible. Every tested task has at least one open-weight model with no statistically detectable performance difference. Second, we quantify the upper bound of annotation quality attainable from the current set of available models by proposing a routing procedure that selectively sends low-confidence items to auxiliary models, revealing when model aggregation improves performance and when that may adversely affect labeling quality.