Large language models (LLMs) can give reliable labels under one setup yet change those labels when researchers make other reasonable design choices. We tested seven LLMs, 12 task designs, three independent runs, and 3,000 tweets labeled for offensive language and hate speech. Repeating the same model and task design produced high agreement (median Fleiss’ 𝜅 = 0.91). Agreement fell when we changed the task design for the same tweets (median Cohen’s 𝜅 = 0.76). Task design and model choice increased the variance of estimated prevalence by factors of 76.7 for offensive language and 110.6 for hate speech compared with sampling variance alone. Variation across LLM task designs reached 560–572 basis points, compared with 270–331 basis points across five human instrument versions. Confidence scores did not solve this problem. They tracked repeated model outputs more closely than agreement with human labels, and grouping six tweets in one prompt lowered mean offensive-language confidence by 660 basis points. We call the variation caused by task design and model choice instrument uncertainty. Researchers can measure it only by comparing reasonable task designs. Repeating one setup or relying on confidence scores cannot replace that test.

While recent research has systematically documented political orientation in large language models (LLMs), existing evaluations rely primarily on direct probing or demographic persona engineering to surface ideological biases. In social psychology, however, political ideology is also understood as a downstream consequence of fundamental moral intuitions. In this work, we manipulate the moral conditioning and investigate the changes in the model’s political behaviors. Rather than simply assigning a demographic persona, we condition models to endorse or reject specific moral values and evaluate the resulting shifts on their political orientations, using the Political Compass Test. By treating moral values as lenses, we observe how moral conditioning actively modulates model trajectories across economic and social dimensions. Our findings show that such conditioning induces pronounced, value-specific shifts in models’ political coordinates. We further notice that these effects are systematically modulated by role framing and model scale, and are robust across alternative assessment instruments instantiating the same moral value. This highlights that effective alignment requires anchoring political assessments within the context of broader social values including morality, paving the way for more socially grounded alignment techniques.

Practitioners across industries increasingly use large language models to extract information from unstructured documents such as financial filings, legal contracts, and sustainability reports, yet typically rely on generic online recommendations for prompt design that lack empirical grounding in their target setting. We address this gap with a practical methodology for systematically varying individual prompt components (prompt structure, contextual information, and model selection) and measuring their effect on extraction quality. We use greenhouse gas emissions extraction from corporate sustainability reports as a case study of fixed numeric extraction from high-stakes PDF documents that vary widely in structure and presentation and are dispersed across company websites. Instantiated in a retrieval-augmented generation pipeline, our evaluation shows that best practices from industry-facing prompting guides do not always hold: a structured prompt incorporating roles, definitions, extraction rules, and JSON formatting unexpectedly underperforms a simpler question-style prompt, while the benefit of adding tabular context proves both prompt- and model-specific. We condense our evaluation procedure and findings into a practitioner’s decision guide for systematically testing design choices on task-specific data rather than adopting generic recommendations by default.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate public opinion and other social phenomena. Most current studies constrain these simulations to multiple-choice or short-answer formats for ease of scoring and comparison, but such closed designs overlook the inherently generative nature of LLMs. In this position paper, we argue that open-endedness, using free-form text that captures topics, viewpoints, and reasoning processes “in” LLMs, is essential for realistic social simulation. Drawing on decades of survey methodology research and recent advances in NLP, we argue why this open-endedness is valuable in LLM social simulations, showing how it can improve measurement and design, support exploration of unanticipated views, and reduce researcher-imposed directive bias. It also captures expressiveness and individuality, aids in pretesting, and ultimately enhances methodological utility. We call for novel practices and evaluation frameworks that leverage rather than constrain the open-ended generative diversity of LLMs, creating synergies between NLP and social science.

Conversational large language models are trained to refuse to answer harmful questions. However, emergent jailbreaking techniques can still elicit unsafe outputs, presenting an ongoing challenge for model alignment. This paper aims to deepen our understanding of how different jailbreak types circumvent safeguards by analyzing model activations on different jailbreak inputs. We find that it is possible to extract a jailbreak vector from a single class of jailbreaks that works to mitigate jailbreak effectiveness from other, semantically-dissimilar classes. This suggests that diverse jailbreaks may exploit a common internal mechanism. We investigate a potential common mechanism of harmfulness feature suppression, and find evidence that effective jailbreaks noticeably reduce a model’s perception of prompt harmfulness. These insights pave the way for developing more robust jailbreak countermeasures and lay the groundwork for a deeper, mechanistic understanding of jailbreak dynamics in language models.

Automated extraction of corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sustainability reports is critical for climate crisis governance, yet the choice of prompt design, context provision, and model in LLM-based pipelines is largely guided by informal best-practice recommendations rather than systematic evaluation. With **Climatextract**, we assess these choices in a RAG pipeline, comparing closed-source against open-weight models, a structured "best-practice" prompt against a simple question-style prompt, and text-only against text-plus-table contexts. We find that performance is non-monotonic across model generations, a structured prompt with roles, definitions, extraction rules, and JSON formatting is significantly outperformed by a question-style prompt, and tabular context helps only in a specific model-prompt combination. A cost-benefit analysis shows that performance gains are often disproportionate to cost increases.

Models trained on crowdsourced annotations may not reflect population views, if those who work as annotators do not represent the broader population. In this paper, we propose PAIR: Population-Aligned Instance Replication, a post-processing method that adjusts training data to better reflect target population characteristics without collecting additional annotations. Using simulation studies on offensive language and hate speech detection with varying annotator compositions, we show that non-representative pools degrade model calibration while leaving accuracy largely unchanged. PAIR corrects these calibration problems by replicating annotations from underrepresented annotator groups to match population proportions. We conclude with recommendations for improving the representativity of training data and model performance.

Traditional methods for eliciting people’s opinions face a trade-off between depth and scale: structured surveys enable large-scale data collection but limit respondents’ ability to voice their opinions in their own words, while conversational interviews provide deeper insights but are resource-intensive. This study explores the potential of replacing human interviewers with large language models (LLMs) to conduct scalable conversational interviews. Our goal is to assess the performance of AI Conversational Interviewing and to identify opportunities for improvement in a controlled environment. We conducted a small-scale, in-depth study with university students who were randomly assigned to a conversational interview by either AI or human interviewers, both employing identical questionnaires on political topics. Various quantitative and qualitative measures assessed interviewer adherence to guidelines, response quality, participant engagement, and overall interview efficacy. The findings indicate the viability of AI Conversational Interviewing in producing quality data comparable to traditional methods, with the added benefit of scalability. We publish our data and materials for re-use and present specific recommendations for effective implementation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising alternatives to traditional occupational coding approaches in survey research. Using a German dataset, we examine the extent to which LLM-based occupational coding differs by gender. Our findings reveal systematic disparities: gendered job titles (e.g., “Autor” vs. “Autorin”, meaning “male author” vs. “female author”) frequently result in diverging occupation codes, even when semantically identical. Across all models, 54%–82% of gendered inputs obtain different Top-5 suggestions. The practical impact, however, depends on the model. GPT includes the correct code most often (62%) but demonstrates female bias (up to +18 pp). IBM is less accurate (51%) but largely balanced. Alibaba, Gemini, and MiniLM achieve about 50% correct-code inclusion, and their small (< 10 pp) and direction-flipping gaps could indicate a sampling noise rather than gender bias. We discuss these findings in the context of fairness and reproducibility in NLP applications for social data.

Probing the multilingual knowledge of linguistic structure in LLMs, often characterized as sequence labeling, faces challenges with maintaining output templates in current text-to-text prompting strategies. To solve this, we introduce a decomposed prompting approach for sequence labeling tasks. Diverging from the single text-to-text prompt, our prompt method generates for each token of the input sentence an individual prompt which asks for its linguistic label. We test our method on the Universal Dependencies part-of-speech tagging dataset for 38 languages, using both English-centric and multilingual LLMs. Our findings show that decomposed prompting surpasses the iterative prompting baseline in efficacy and efficiency under zero- and few-shot settings. Moreover, our analysis of multilingual performance of English-centric LLMs yields insights into the transferability of linguistic knowledge via multilingual prompting.

While there is a widespread belief that artificial general intelligence—or even superhuman AI—is imminent, complex problems in expert domains are far from being solved. We argue that such problems require human–AI cooperation and that the current state of the art in generative AI is unable to play the role of a reliable partner due to a multitude of shortcomings, including difficulty in keeping track of a complex solution artifact (e.g., a software program), limited support for versatile human preference expression, and lack of adapting to human preference in an interactive setting. To address these challenges, we propose HAI-Co2, a novel human–AI co-construction framework. We take first steps towards a formalization of HAI-Co2 and discuss the difficult open research problems that it faces.

In recent research, large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly used to investigate public opinions. This study investigates the algorithmic fidelity of LLMs, i.e., the ability to replicate the socio-cultural context and nuanced opinions of human participants. Using open-ended survey data from the German Longitudinal Election Studies (GLES), we prompt different LLMs to generate synthetic public opinions reflective of German subpopulations by incorporating demographic features into the persona prompts. Our results show that Llama performs better than other LLMs at representing subpopulations, particularly when there is lower opinion diversity within those groups. Our findings further reveal that the LLM performs better for supporters of left-leaning parties like The Greens and The Left compared to other parties, and matches the least with the right-party AfD. Additionally, the inclusion or exclusion of specific variables in the prompts can significantly impact the models’ predictions. These findings underscore the importance of aligning LLMs to more effectively model diverse public opinions while minimizing political biases and enhancing robustness in representativeness.

Understanding pragmatics—the use of language in context—is crucial for developing NLP systems capable of interpreting nuanced language use. Despite recent advances in language technologies, including large language models, evaluating their ability to handle pragmatic phenomena such as implicatures and references remains challenging. To advance pragmatic abilities in models, it is essential to understand current evaluation trends and identify existing limitations. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive review of resources designed for evaluating pragmatic capabilities in NLP, categorizing datasets by the pragmatic phenomena they address. We analyze task designs, data collection methods, evaluation approaches, and their relevance to real-world applications. By examining these resources in the context of modern language models, we highlight emerging trends, challenges, and gaps in existing benchmarks. Our survey aims to clarify the landscape of pragmatic evaluation and guide the development of more comprehensive and targeted benchmarks, ultimately contributing to more nuanced and context-aware NLP models.

The data-centric revolution in AI has revealed the importance of high-quality training data for developing successful AI models. However, annotations are sensitive to annotator characteristics, training materials, and to the design and wording of the data collection instrument. This paper explores the impact of observation order on annotations. We find that annotators’ judgments change based on the order in which they see observations. We use ideas from social psychology to motivate hypotheses about why this order effect occurs. We believe that insights from social science can help AI researchers improve data and model quality.

Although the NLP community has adopted central differential privacy as a go-to framework for privacy-preserving model training or data sharing, the choice and interpretation of the key parameter, privacy budget 𝜀 that governs the strength of privacy protection, remains largely arbitrary. We argue that determining the 𝜀 value should not be solely in the hands of researchers or system developers, but must also take into account the actual people who share their potentially sensitive data. In other words: Would you share your instant messages for 𝜀 of 10? We address this research gap by designing, implementing, and conducting a behavioral experiment (311 lay participants) to study the behavior of people in uncertain decision-making situations with respect to privacy-threatening situations. Framing the risk perception in terms of two realistic NLP scenarios and using a vignette behavioral study help us determine what 𝜀 thresholds would lead lay people to be willing to share sensitive textual data – to our knowledge, the first study of its kind.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked wide interest in validating and comprehending the human-like cognitive-behavioral traits LLMs may capture and convey. These cognitive-behavioral traits include typically Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOVs). However, measuring AOVs embedded within LLMs remains opaque, and different evaluation methods may yield different results. This has led to a lack of clarity on how different studies are related to each other and how they can be interpreted. This paper aims to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of recent works on the evaluation of AOVs in LLMs. Moreover, we survey related approaches in different stages of the evaluation pipeline in these works. By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences. Finally, we provide practical insights into evaluation methods, model enhancement, and interdisciplinary collaboration, thereby contributing to the evolving landscape of evaluating AOVs in LLMs.

The open-ended nature of language generation makes the evaluation of autoregressive large language models (LLMs) challenging. One common evaluation approach uses multiple-choice questions to limit the response space. The model is then evaluated by ranking the candidate answers by the log probability of the first token prediction. However, first-tokens may not consistently reflect the final response output, due to model’s diverse response styles such as starting with “Sure” or refusing to answer. Consequently, first-token evaluation is not indicative of model behaviour when interacting with users. But by how much? We evaluate how aligned first-token evaluation is with the text output along several dimensions, namely final option choice, refusal rate, choice distribution and robustness under prompt perturbation. Our results show that the two approaches are severely misaligned on all dimensions, reaching mismatch rates over 60%. Models heavily fine-tuned on conversational or safety data are especially impacted. Crucially, models remain misaligned even when we increasingly constrain prompts, i.e., force them to start with an option letter or example template. Our findings i) underscore the importance of inspecting the text output as well and ii) caution against relying solely on first-token evaluation.

Prompt-based methods have been successfully applied to multilingual pretrained language models for zero-shot cross-lingual understanding. However, most previous studies primarily focused on sentence-level classification tasks, and only a few considered token-level labeling tasks such as Named Entity Recognition (NER) and Part-of-Speech (POS) tagging. In this paper, we propose Token-Level Prompt Decomposition (ToPro), which facilitates the prompt-based method for token-level sequence labeling tasks. The ToPro method decomposes an input sentence into single tokens and applies one prompt template to each token. Our experiments on multilingual NER and POS tagging datasets demonstrate that ToPro-based fine-tuning outperforms Vanilla fine-tuning and Prompt-Tuning in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer, especially for languages that are typologically different from the source language English. Our method also attains state-of-the-art performance when employed with the mT5 model. Besides, our exploratory study in multilingual large language models shows that ToPro performs much better than the current in-context learning method. Overall, the performance improvements show that ToPro could potentially serve as a novel and simple benchmarking method for sequence labeling tasks.

We present a research agenda focused on efficiently extracting, assuring quality, and consolidating textual company sustainability information to address urgent climate change decision-making needs. Starting from the goal to create integrated FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) climate-related data, we identify research needs pertaining to the technical aspects of information extraction as well as to the design of the integrated sustainability datasets that we seek to compile. Regarding extraction, we leverage technological advancements, particularly in large language models (LLMs) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, to unlock the underutilized potential of unstructured textual information contained in corporate sustainability reports. In applying these techniques, we review key challenges, which include the retrieval and extraction of CO₂ emission values from PDF documents, especially from unstructured tables and graphs therein, and the validation of automatically extracted data through comparisons with human-annotated values. We also review how existing use cases and practices in climate risk analytics relate to choices of what textual information should be extracted and how it could be linked to existing structured data.

When training data are collected from human annotators, the design of the annotation instrument, the instructions given to annotators, the characteristics of the annotators, and their interactions can impact training data. This study demonstrates that design choices made when creating an annotation instrument also impact the models trained on the resulting annotations. We introduce the term annotation sensitivity to refer to the impact of annotation data collection methods on the annotations themselves and on downstream model performance and predictions. We collect annotations of hate speech and offensive language in five experimental conditions of an annotation instrument, randomly assigning annotators to conditions. We then fine-tune BERT models on each of the five resulting datasets and evaluate model performance on a holdout portion of each condition. We find considerable differences between the conditions for 1) the share of hate speech/offensive language annotations, 2) model performance, 3) model predictions, and 4) model learning curves. Our results emphasize the crucial role played by the annotation instrument which has received little attention in the machine learning literature. We call for additional research into how and why the instrument impacts the annotations to inform the development of best practices in instrument design.