What Is Actually Being Annotated? Inter-Prompt Reliability as a Measurement Problem in LLM-Based Social Science Labeling

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16413v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 02:35:25 GMT
• Title: What Is Actually Being Annotated? Inter-Prompt Reliability as a Measurement Problem in LLM-Based Social Science Labeling
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces Inter-Prompt Reliability (IPR), a framework for evaluating the stability of large language models (LLMs) across linguistically varied prompts.<n>We evaluate this framework on two tasks with distinct properties: TREC (interpretative) and Politifact (knowledge-anchored)
• Score: 8.119041322912375
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for annotation in computational social science, yet their methodological reliability under prompt variation remains unclear. This paper introduces Inter-Prompt Reliability (IPR), a framework for evaluating the stability of LLM outputs across semantically equivalent but linguistically varied prompts. Drawing on Inter-Rater Reliability, IPR is measured by Pairwise Agreement Rate (PAR) and its distribution to capture both consistency and stochasticity in model behavior. We evaluate this framework on two tasks with distinct properties: TREC (interpretative) and Politifact (knowledge-anchored). Results show that LLM annotation exhibits substantial stochastic variation in interpretative tasks, while appearing more stable in knowledge-based tasks. We further show that majority voting across prompts significantly improves reproducibility and reduces variance. These findings suggest that LLM prompt acts as an instrumental measurement while its wording exhibits methodological uncertainty. For future LLM-based CSS studies, we suggest that researchers move beyond single-prompt evaluation toward distributional stability and prompt aggregation within our IPR framework.

Related papers

• Can LLMs Use Linguistic Uncertainty Markers to Reliably Reflect Intrinsic Confidence? [50.17126900886782]
  It remains unclear whether models can apply their own linguistic confidence framework to associate markers with specific confidence levels in a stable and generalizable way.<n>We formalize _marker internal confidence_ (MIC) as the estimated intrinsic confidence a model associates with a specific epistemic marker in a given task domain.<n>Applying our analysis framework to diverse models and tasks, we find that LLMs remain faithfully miscalibrated even under model-centric interpretation of marker meanings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T17:38:00Z)
• Farther the Shift, Sparser the Representation: Analyzing OOD Mechanisms in LLMs [100.02824137397464]
  We investigate how Large Language Models adapt their internal representations when encountering inputs of increasing difficulty.<n>We reveal a consistent and quantifiable phenomenon: as task difficulty increases, the last hidden states of LLMs become substantially sparser.<n>This sparsity--difficulty relation is observable across diverse models and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T18:48:15Z)
• Temporal Referential Consistency: Do LLMs Favor Sequences Over Absolute Time References? [21.90468150326666]
  Large language models (LLMs) are an alternative to knowledge sources.<n>LLMs must be factually accurate and demonstrate consistency across temporal dimensions.<n>Despite this critical requirement, efforts to ensure temporal consistency in LLMs remain scarce.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T10:33:48Z)
• Quantifying Fairness in LLMs Beyond Tokens: A Semantic and Statistical Perspective [24.54292750583169]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications.<n>We propose FiSCo (Fine-grained Semantic Comparison), a novel statistical framework to evaluate group-level fairness in LLMs.<n>We decompose model outputs into semantically distinct claims and apply statistical hypothesis testing to compare inter- and intra-group similarities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T18:31:22Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct.<n>We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z)
• Evaluating Consistencies in LLM responses through a Semantic Clustering of Question Answering [1.9214041945441436]
  We present a new approach for evaluating semanticencies of Large Language Model (LLM) Our approach evaluates whether LLM re-sponses are semantically congruent for a given question, recognizing that as syntactically different sentences may convey the same meaning. Using the TruthfulQA dataset to assess LLM responses, the study induces N re-sponses per question and clusters semantically equivalent sentences to measure semantic consistency across 37 categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T16:21:25Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models [9.040736633675136]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks.<n>We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs.<n>We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T18:11:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.