Collecting labeled datasets in finance is challenging due to scarcity of domain experts and higher cost of employing them. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in data annotation tasks on general domain datasets, their effectiveness on domain specific datasets remains under-explored. To address this gap, we investigate the potential of LLMs as efficient data annotators for extracting relations in financial documents. We compare the annotations produced by three LLMs (GPT-4, PaLM 2, and MPT Instruct) against expert annotators and crowdworkers. We demonstrate that the current state-of-the-art LLMs can be sufficient alternatives to non-expert crowdworkers. We analyze models using various prompts and parameter settings and find that customizing the prompts for each relation group by providing specific examples belonging to those groups is paramount. Furthermore, we introduce a reliability index (LLM-RelIndex) used to identify outputs that may require expert attention. Finally, we perform an extensive time, cost and error analysis and provide recommendations for the collection and usage of automated annotations in domain-specific settings.

We contribute the largest publicly available dataset of naturally occurring factual claims for the purpose of automatic claim verification. It is collected from 26 fact checking websites in English, paired with textual sources and rich metadata, and labelled for veracity by human expert journalists. We present an in-depth analysis of the dataset, highlighting characteristics and challenges. Further, we present results for automatic veracity prediction, both with established baselines and with a novel method for joint ranking of evidence pages and predicting veracity that outperforms all baselines. Significant performance increases are achieved by encoding evidence, and by modelling metadata. Our best-performing model achieves a Macro F1 of 49.2%, showing that this is a challenging testbed for claim veracity prediction.