In computational social science (CSS), researchers analyze documents to explain social and political phenomena. In most scenarios, CSS researchers first obtain labels for documents and then explain labels using interpretable regression analyses in the second step. One increasingly common way to annotate documents cheaply at scale is through large language models (LLMs). However, like other scalable ways of producing annotations, such surrogate labels are often imperfect and biased. We present a new algorithm for using imperfect annotation surrogates for downstream statistical analyses while guaranteeing statistical properties--like asymptotic unbiasedness and proper uncertainty quantification--which are fundamental to CSS research.

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 along two dimensions: the task type (T), which distinguishes between classification, short-form, and long-form generation, and the validation type (V), which captures the availability of reference data or evaluative criteria. Drawing from both computer science and social science literature, we map existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods to this T-V typology and offer practical recommendations for researchers. Our framework provides both a methodological safeguard and a practical guide for integrating LLMs into rigorous social science research.

In a new series of interviews, we're meeting some of the PhD students that were selected to take part in the Doctoral Consortium at the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2025) . In the second interview of the series, we caught up with Frida Hartman to find out how her PhD is going so far, and plans for the next steps in her investigations. Frida, along with co-authors Mario Mirabile and Michele Dusi, was also the winner of the ECAI-2025 Diversity & Inclusion Competition, for work entitled . This award was presented at the closing ceremony of the conference. Could start by giving us a quick introduction to yourself and the topic that you're working on?

Our research investigates how Natural Language Processing (NLP) can be u sed to extract main topics from a larger corpus of written data, as applied to the case of identifying signaling themes in Presidential Directives (PDs) from the Reagan through Clinton administrations . Analysts and NLP both identified relevant documents, demonstrating the potential utility of NLPs in research involving large written corpuses. H owever, we also identified discrepancies between NLP and human - labeled results that indicate a need for more research to assess the validity of NLP in this use case . The research was conducted in 2023, and the rapidly evolving landscape of AIML means existing tools have improved and new tools have been developed; this research displays the inherent capabilities of a potentially dated AI tool in emerging social science applications .

What makes us who we are? Is it our DNA, passed down through generations, or the environment that shapes our lives? This question--how nature and nurture combine to influence health and behavior--has long captured my curiosity. As I grew up in a multigenerational household, I was struck by the story of my two uncles, identical twins who were genetically indistinguishable but who lived out very different health journeys. One developed severe cardiovascular disease by his early forties; the other stayed healthy into his sixties. What separated them was not biology--it was environment.

In this position paper, we argue that human baselines in foundation model evaluations must be more rigorous and more transparent to enable meaningful comparisons of human vs. AI performance, and we provide recommendations and a reporting checklist towards this end. Human performance baselines are vital for the machine learning community, downstream users, and policymakers to interpret AI evaluations. Models are often claimed to achieve "super-human" performance, but existing baselining methods are neither sufficiently rigorous nor sufficiently well-documented to robustly measure and assess performance differences. Based on a meta-review of the measurement theory and AI evaluation literatures, we derive a framework with recommendations for designing, executing, and reporting human baselines. We synthesize our recommendations into a checklist that we use to systematically review 115 human baselines (studies) in foundation model evaluations and thus identify shortcomings in existing baselining methods; our checklist can also assist researchers in conducting human baselines and reporting results. We hope our work can advance more rigorous AI evaluation practices that can better serve both the research community and policymakers. Data is available at: https://github.com/kevinlwei/human-baselines

We review the historical development and current trends of artificially intelligent agents (agentic AI) in the social and behavioral sciences: from the first programmable computers, and social simulations soon thereafter, to today's experiments with large language models. This overview emphasizes the role of AI in the scientific process and the changes brought about, both through technological advancements and the broader evolution of science from around 1950 to the present. Some of the specific points we cover include: the challenges of presenting the first social simulation studies to a world unaware of computers, the rise of social systems science, intelligent game theoretic agents, the age of big data and the epistemic upheaval in its wake, and the current enthusiasm around applications of generative AI, and many other topics. A pervasive theme is how deeply entwined we are with the technologies we use to understand ourselves.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used as synthetic agents in social science, in applications ranging from augmenting survey responses to powering multi-agent simulations. This paper outlines cautions that should be taken when interpreting LLM outputs and proposes a pragmatic reframing for the social sciences in which LLMs are used as high-capacity pattern matchers for quasi-predictive interpolation under explicit scope conditions and not as substitutes for probabilistic inference. Practical guardrails such as independent draws, preregistered human baselines, reliability-aware validation, and subgroup calibration, are introduced so that researchers may engage in useful prototyping and forecasting while avoiding category errors.

The social science of large language models (LLMs) examines how these systems evoke mind attributions, interact with one another, and transform human activity and institutions. We conducted a systematic review of 270 studies, combining text embeddings, unsupervised clustering and topic modeling to build a computational taxonomy. Three domains emerge organically across the reviewed literature. LLM as Social Minds examines whether and when models display behaviors that elicit attributions of cognition, morality and bias, while addressing challenges such as test leakage and surface cues. LLM Societies examines multi-agent settings where interaction protocols, architectures and mechanism design shape coordination, norms, institutions and collective epistemic processes. LLM-Human Interactions examines how LLMs reshape tasks, learning, trust, work and governance, and how risks arise at the human-AI interface. This taxonomy provides a reproducible map of a fragmented field, clarifies evidentiary standards across levels of analysis, and highlights opportunities for cumulative progress in the social science of artificial intelligence.