Researchers increasingly use text classification--supervised models or large language models--to measure constructs from natural language, providing metrics such as recall and precision as evidence of their validity. Yet, though these metrics are point estimates subject to sampling variation, measures of uncertainty are inconsistently reported alongside them. Further, when they are reported, they are often estimated with methods that are not appropriate when relevant labelled datasets are small or performance is high. To increase and improve confidence interval reporting in the field, this paper evaluates confidence interval methods for performance metrics under conditions typical of social science text classification: small to moderate sample sizes, infrequent constructs, and texts nested within individuals. Across simulations, default methods such as the Wald interval and the basic percentile bootstrap are the least accurate, with coverage sometimes far below the nominal 95% level. Accuracy is improved with the use of Agresti-Coull, Wilson, Clopper-Pearson, and a novel pseudo-count regularized bootstrap (which is particularly relevant to the calculation of F1). When texts are nested within individuals, we demonstrate that adjustment for both effective N and the appropriate degrees of freedom is necessary for producing accurate analytic intervals. Among bootstrap intervals, the hierarchical bootstrap is more accurate than the cluster bootstrap when individuals produce a moderate number of texts but overly conservative when individuals produce only a few. By providing guidance to the field on appropriate interval estimation, we aim to improve the transparency of machine learning applications, and to encourage greater attention to the validation sample size at the design stage.
A key factor in deciding whether to trust an automatic prediction is its confidence score, which should be calibrated to match the actual probability of the prediction being correct. Most confidence calibration metrics target binary or multi-class tasks, while multi-label calibration remains largely underexplored. Multi-label classification tasks, such as assigning medical codes to clinical notes or determining news topics, are usually dominated by a large number of negatives, i.e., labels that do not apply. We show that existing binning schemes to compute label-wise expected calibration error either underestimate the error, simply reflect label frequency, or suffer from many bins with very few instances. To achieve trustworthy label-wise calibration errors, we propose a new binning scheme that gives equal weight to positive and negative label assignments. Our empirical study demonstrates that in contrast to existing binning schemes, our new scheme results in meaningful estimates of calibration error in hierarchical and in extreme multi-label classification. We also show that calibrating confidence scores of large language models for multi-label predictions is an open challenge. Our detailed analysis lays the foundation for further research by providing a solid evaluation metric for measuring calibration in multi-label classification.
Sophie Henning, Georg Hofmann, Alexander Schulte +2
Confidence estimation is essential when LLMs are used for classification, indicating when predictions can be trusted. However, common approaches such as verbalization produce extremely sparse outputs. For instance, Qwen3-32B verbalizes only eight unique confidence values on SST-2, with over half being exactly 95%, a pattern we observe consistently across four datasets and two LLMs. Besides limiting practical utility, we show that this sparsity critically affects evaluation: the choice of interpolation in area under the accuracy-rejection curve (AUARC) dramatically alters rankings, with consistency sampling dropping from best to worst under stepwise versus linear interpolation. We advocate for standardizing stepwise interpolation for a fairer comparison. Under such a fair evaluation, we find that weighting verbalized digits by token probabilities, a method we term verbalization logprobs, addresses sparsity and achieves the best AUARC (+2.3 points over vanilla verbalization) without incurring additional inference cost.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs. Measurement validity demands more than high average accuracy, which requires well calibrated confidence that faithfully reflects the empirical probability of each measurement being correct. This paper studies the model miscalibration in LLM-based social science measurement. We begin with a case study on FOMC and show that confidence based filtering can change downstream regression estimates when LLM confidence is miscalibrated. We then audit calibration across 14 social science constructs covering both proprietary models, including GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, and open source models. Across tasks and model families, reported confidence is poorly aligned with tolerance-based correctness. As a simple mitigation, we propose a soft label distillation pipeline for calibrating Bert with LLM. The method converts an LLM score and its verbalized confidence into a soft target distribution, then trains a smaller discriminative classifier on encoder models for these targets. Averaged across datasets, this approach reduces ECE by 43.2% and Brier by 34.0%. These results suggest that LLM-based social science pipelines should treat calibration as part of measurement validity, rather than as an optional post-processing concern.