Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2512.05461

Knowing Your Uncertainty -- On the application of LLM in social sciences

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into computational social science research, yet their blackboxed training and designed stochastic elements in inference pose unique challenges for scientific inquiry. This article argues that applying LLMs to social scientific tasks requires explicit assessment of uncertainty -- an expectation long established in both quantitative methodology in the social sciences and machine learning. We introduce a unified framework for evaluating LLM uncertainty based on Hill numbers, a family of diversity measures. By transforming existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) metrics into Hill numbers, the framework provides a common and intuitive scale for interpreting variation in LLM outputs while accommodating different notions of semantic similarity and different sensitivities to output distributions. We show how it might help the application of LLMs in social sciences through four empirical applications.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Bolun Zhang, Linzhuo Li, Yunqi Chen, Qinlin Zhao, Zihan Zhu, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xing Xie. 2026-09-06. Knowing Your Uncertainty -- On the application of LLM in social sciences. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.05461

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Reducing Catastrophic Risk from AI with Systematic Monitoring and Evaluation of Rogue AI Progression

This article presents a structured framework of behavioral indicators that may signal progression toward potentially catastrophic threats from artificial intelligence systems. We adopt a pragmatic approach, inspired by established methodologies in cybersecurity and national security. By establishing clear metrics, indicators, and thresholds across multiple dimensions of AI capability and behavior, this framework enables researchers and policymakers to implement evidence-based monitoring protocols.

cs.CY

Experts Disagree on How to Fight AI Disinformation, but Agree That Health and Politics Need Different Solutions

When 54 international experts assessed AI-generated disinformation threats, they revealed a surprising pattern: while video deepfakes received the highest average threat ratings in the political domain (M = 6.31/7), the pattern differed in the health domain, where AI-generated text received the highest average rating (M = 5.80). Experts also diverge on what to do: government regulation drew both the most "most effective" (30%) and the most "least effective" (15%) votes, though rating distributions were contested rather than polarized, indicating disagreement over priorities rather than over efficacy. These findings offer an initial expert map of an AI-disinformation landscape that is still rapidly forming.

cs.CY

On the Context Sensitivity of LLM Moral Judgment

A human's moral decision depends heavily on the context. Yet research on LLM morality has largely studied fixed scenarios. We address this gap by introducing Contextual MoralChoice, a dataset of moral dilemmas with systematic contextual variations known from moral psychology to shift human judgment: consequentialist, emotional, and relational. Evaluating 22 LLMs, we find that nearly all models are context-sensitive, shifting their judgments towards rule-violating behavior. Comparing with a human survey, we find that models and humans are most triggered by different contextual variations, and that a model aligned with human judgments in the base case is not necessarily aligned in its contextual sensitivity. This raises the question of controlling contextual sensitivity, which we address with an activation steering approach that can reliably increase or decrease a model's contextual sensitivity. Code and data: https://github.com/adrian-sauter/contextual_moralchoice.

cs.AI