Papers for

computational social science teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Large language models show hidden failures in content analysis tasks

High Scores, Hidden Failures: Evaluating Codebook-Based LLM Content Analysis

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for codebook-based content analysis in computational social science, where codebooks translate theoretical concepts into labeling schemes. While prior work reports strong predictive performance, it remains unclear whether these systems produce reliable and robust text annotations. We conduct a large-scale empirical failure-mode analysis of LLM-based coding pipelines across four datasets and five models by systematically evaluating their stability, robustness, and conceptual validity under controlled perturbations, domain shifts, and optimization procedures. We uncover multiple failure modes that are largely invisible under standard metrics, showing that high aggregate scores frequently coexist with severe label-level disparities, instability across runs, domain sensitivity, and shifts in label interpretation. Importantly, these failure modes persist under widely used optimization strategies and remain largely invisible under standard metrics such as accuracy and micro-F1. Our results demonstrate that current LLM-based coding pipelines cannot be treated as stable measurement tools without targeted validation beyond aggregate performance.

Mon 26 OctComputation and LanguageComputers and Society
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) are often used to automatically label text based on predefined codes, which helps social scientists analyze text data. The authors found that even when these models seem accurate overall, they often make inconsistent or unreliable labeling decisions that go unnoticed by standard accuracy checks. These problems include instability when the model runs multiple times, sensitivity to changes in text or context, and varying meanings of labels. The authors show that without careful additional testing, these LLM-based tools should not be fully trusted to produce stable, valid labels.
Open → 2610.35179v1

Vision-language models reduce video annotation costs with simple heuristics

Paying for Too Many Tokens? Valid and Cost-Efficient Multimodal LLM Annotation with Simple Heuristics

Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) enable video annotation at scale, but costs accumulate quickly: processing a typical 60-second short-form video at one frame per second requires millions of tokens. To reduce costs, researchers rely on heuristics such as sampling a subset of frames, compressing videos into image grids, or using only a single modality. However, it remains unclear which heuristics save cost, and whether they preserve the downstream conclusions these annotations enable. To address this gap, we conduct a systematic evaluation of these heuristics using short-form videos, on two computational social science (CSS) tasks: sentiment and topic classification. We evaluate each configuration along three axes the literature typically treats separately: classification accuracy, validity of downstream inference, and per-video token cost. First, we find that accuracy and validity diverge: the highest-accuracy configuration can produce wrong conclusions. Second, modality value is not guaranteed: text alone can yield strong performance, indicating that adding modalities can add cost without adding signal. Finally, we find that cost can be decoupled from video length when annotating short-form videos: a single $2\times8$ image grid built via simple shot-transition detection approaches full-video understanding ($κ$ within~.05), at $\sim 15\%$ of the token cost. Based on these findings, we derive guidelines that can enable cost-aware VLM annotation in CSS.

Wed 30 SeptComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionComputation and LanguageSocial and Information Networks
The gist
Annotating videos using vision-language models can be very expensive because they process a lot of data. The authors studied simple ways to save money, like looking at fewer video frames or using only parts of the information. They found that some cheaper methods still give good understanding without misleading results, especially using small image grids instead of full videos. This helps people who need video insights get reliable results while paying less.
Open → 2610.00809v1