Christopher Barrie

Christopher Barrie, Elli Palaiologou, Petter Törnberg

Researchers are increasingly using language models (LMs) for text annotation. These approaches rely only on a prompt telling the model to return a given output according to a set of instructions. The reproducibility of LM outputs may nonetheless be vulnerable to small changes in the prompt design. This calls into question the replicability of classification routines. To tackle this problem, researchers have typically tested a variety of semantically similar prompts to determine what we call ``prompt stability." These approaches remain ad-hoc and task specific. In this article, we propose a general framework for diagnosing prompt stability by adapting traditional approaches to intra- and inter-coder reliability scoring. We call the resulting metric the Prompt Stability Score (PSS) and provide a Python package \texttt{promptstability} for its estimation. Using six different datasets and twelve outcomes, we classify $\sim$3.1m rows of data and $\sim$300m input tokens to: a) diagnose when prompt stability is low; and b) demonstrate the functionality of the package. We conclude by providing best practice recommendations for applied researchers.

Nicolò Pagan, Petter Törnberg, Christopher A. Bail et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the social sciences to simulate human behavior, based on the assumption that they can generate realistic, human-like text. Yet this assumption remains largely untested. Existing validation efforts rely heavily on human-judgment-based evaluations -- testing whether humans can distinguish AI from human output -- despite evidence that such judgments are blunt and unreliable. As a result, the field lacks robust tools for assessing the realism of LLM-generated text or for calibrating models to real-world data. This paper makes two contributions. First, we introduce a computational Turing test: a validation framework that integrates aggregate metrics (BERT-based detectability and semantic similarity) with interpretable linguistic features (stylistic markers and topical patterns) to assess how closely LLMs approximate human language within a given dataset. Second, we systematically compare nine open-weight LLMs across five calibration strategies -- including fine-tuning, stylistic prompting, and context retrieval -- benchmarking their ability to reproduce user interactions on X (formerly Twitter), Bluesky, and Reddit. Our findings challenge core assumptions in the literature. Even after calibration, LLM outputs remain clearly distinguishable from human text, particularly in affective tone and emotional expression. Instruction-tuned models underperform their base counterparts, and scaling up model size does not enhance human-likeness. Crucially, we identify a trade-off: optimizing for human-likeness often comes at the cost of semantic fidelity, and vice versa. These results provide a much-needed scalable framework for validation and calibration in LLM simulations -- and offer a cautionary note about their current limitations in capturing human communication.

Nicolò Pagan, Christopher Barrie, Chris Andrew Bail et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to curate and rank human-created content, yet the nature and structure of their biases in these tasks remains poorly understood: which biases are robust across providers and platforms, and which can be mitigated through prompt design. We present a controlled simulation study mapping content selection biases across three major LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) on real social media datasets from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit, using six prompting strategies (\textit{general}, \textit{popular}, \textit{engaging}, \textit{informative}, \textit{controversial}, \textit{neutral}). Through 540,000 simulated top-10 selections from pools of 100 posts across 54 experimental conditions, we find that biases differ substantially in how structural and how prompt-sensitive they are. Polarization is amplified across all configurations, toxicity handling shows a strong inversion between engagement- and information-focused prompts, and sentiment biases are predominantly negative. Provider comparisons reveal distinct trade-offs: GPT-4o Mini shows the most consistent behavior across prompts; Claude and Gemini exhibit high adaptivity in toxicity handling; Gemini shows the strongest negative sentiment preference. On Twitter/X, where author demographics can be inferred from profile bios, political leaning bias is the clearest demographic signal: left-leaning authors are systematically over-represented despite right-leaning authors forming the pool plurality in the dataset, and this pattern largely persists across prompts.