Large language models (LLMs) are capable of successfully performing many language processing tasks zero-shot (without training data). If zero-shot LLMs can also reliably classify and explain social phenomena like persuasiveness and political ideology, then LLMs could augment the computational social science (CSS) pipeline in important ways. This work provides a road map for using LLMs as CSS tools. Towards this end, we contribute a set of prompting best practices and an extensive evaluation pipeline to measure the zero-shot performance of 13 language models on 25 representative English CSS benchmarks. On taxonomic labeling tasks (classification), LLMs fail to outperform the best fine-tuned models but still achieve fair levels of agreement with humans. On free-form coding tasks (generation), LLMs produce explanations that often exceed the quality of crowdworkers’ gold references. We conclude that the performance of today’s LLMs can augment the CSS research pipeline in two ways: (1) serving as zero-shot data annotators on human annotation teams, and (2) bootstrapping challenging creative generation tasks (e.g., explaining the underlying attributes of a text). In summary, LLMs are posed to meaningfully participate in social science analysis in partnership with humans.

Nowadays, many hate speech detectors are built to automatically detect hateful content. However, their training sets are sometimes skewed towards certain stereotypes (e.g., race or religion-related). As a result, the detectors are prone to depend on some shortcuts for predictions. Previous works mainly focus on token-level analysis and heavily rely on human experts’ annotations to identify spurious correlations, which is not only costly but also incapable of discovering higher-level artifacts. In this work, we use grammar induction to find grammar patterns for hate speech and analyze this phenomenon from a causal perspective. Concretely, we categorize and verify different biases based on their spuriousness and influence on the model prediction. Then, we propose two mitigation approaches including Multi-Task Intervention and Data-Specific Intervention based on these confounders. Experiments conducted on 9 hate speech datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) show powerful reasoning abilities on various text-based tasks. However, their reasoning capability on structured data such as tables has not been systematically explored. In this work, we first establish a comprehensive taxonomy of reasoning and operation types for tabular data analysis. Then, we construct a complex reasoning QA dataset over tabular data, named CRT-QA dataset (Complex Reasoning QA over Tabular data), with the following unique features: (1) it is the first Table QA dataset with multi-step operation and informal reasoning; (2) it contains fine-grained annotations on questions’ directness, composition types of sub-questions, and human reasoning paths which can be used to conduct a thorough investigation on LLMs’ reasoning ability; (3) it contains a collection of unanswerable and indeterminate questions that commonly arise in real-world situations. We further introduce an efficient and effective tool-augmented method, named ARC (Auto-exemplar-guided Reasoning with Code), to use external tools such as Pandas to solve table reasoning tasks without handcrafted demonstrations. The experiment results show that CRT-QA presents a strong challenge for baseline methods and ARC achieves the best result.