Assessing and Mitigating Miscalibration in LLM-Based Social Science Measurement

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's {\em behavioral robustness} to irrelevant or misleading information. In this paper, we argue that a model's true confidence should reflect its stability under cognitive pressure. We introduce \textsc{CaliDist}, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction. \textsc{CaliDist} quantifies how an LLM's predictions and uncertainty change when its input prompt is perturbed with semantic \textit{distractors}. This stability (or lack thereof) signal is then used to adaptively scale the model's initial confidence score. Our extensive experiments on seven Natural Language Understanding classification benchmarks using six distinct LLMs show that \textsc{CaliDist} consistently achieves lower Expected Calibration Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines. Remarkably, our method reduces the ECE from 23% to 7% on average--a relative improvement of 70%--demonstrating that behavioral stability is a powerful signal for calibration. We make our code and datasets available at github.com/m-anas-j/CaliDist.

LLM confidence calibration is often evaluated by comparing two signals: token-probability scores and verbalized confidence. These signals are sometimes treated as direct readouts of model uncertainty, but their comparison depends on measurement choices that are rarely made explicit. In the main analysis, we hold the verbalized-confidence elicitation fixed: a single prompt template, probability scale, and output format. We then vary the measurement axes that define the verbalized-vs-token comparison: which answer string receives the token-probability score, how that score is read from the answer tokens, and under which conditioning context it is measured. We evaluate this design on four QA benchmarks across three open 7--8B base/Instruct model families, with larger Qwen2.5 variants as same-family robustness checks. The resulting comparison is sensitive to these choices: conditioning context changes the sign or magnitude of the ECE gap across settings, token readout produces smaller but still sign-moving changes, and changing the ECE estimator has little effect. Under the default generated-answer, bare-context protocol, Instruct settings are close to parity rather than showing a large calibration gain for verbalized confidence. In a separate supplied-answer analysis, surface-plausible wrong answers receive nearly the same confidence as supplied gold answers, suggesting that verbalized confidence also reflects answer plausibility and provenance rather than correctness alone. We argue that both confidence signals should be treated as protocol-dependent behavioral measurements, and provide a reporting checklist covering elicitation provenance, scored answer, token-probability readout, and conditioning context.