When Better Codebooks Are Not Enough: Predictive Performance and Behavioral Reliability in LLM Political Event Coding
Quick Answer
The study reveals that while clearer expert codebooks enhance classification performance in political event coding, they do not guarantee behavioral reliability in LLMs.
Quick Take
The study reveals that while clearer expert codebooks enhance classification performance in political event coding, they do not guarantee behavioral reliability in LLMs. This indicates that LLMs should be evaluated not just on accuracy but also on their ability to maintain the coding logic essential for social-science research.
Key Points
- Clearer codebooks significantly improve classification performance for fine-grained political event coding.
- LLMs may achieve high accuracy but fail behavioral reliability tests with controlled codebook changes.
- Expert-written codebooks are crucial for transforming text into structured data in social sciences.
- Behavioral reliability is essential for ensuring meaningful coded outputs in research.
- The study emphasizes the need for comprehensive evaluation criteria beyond just accuracy.
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2606. 06781v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: High accuracy does not necessarily make an LLM a faithful coder. This issue matters because many social-science studies rely on expert-written codebooks to turn text into structured data. We study this problem in political event coding, a challenging source-target relation classification task beyond ordinary sentence-level classification, where models must determine what one actor did to another using detailed coding rules.
We test whether expert codebooks become more effective when operationalized into LLM-friendly forms with clearer definitions, examples, retrieved context, and rules for difficult cases. We then evaluate behavioral reliability under controlled changes to label names, codebook order, and label-definition mappings. Clearer codebooks substantially improve classification performance, especially for fine-grained event classification. However, these predictive gains do not fully translate into behavioral reliability.
Models may produce valid labels and recover definitions while still failing behavioral reliability tests under controlled codebook changes. These findings suggest that codebook-guided LLM systems should be evaluated not only by accuracy, but also by whether they preserve the coding logic that makes coded outputs meaningful for social-science research.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The REFLECT benchmark reveals that current LLM judges are unreliable, achieving below 55% accuracy in evaluating reasoning and evidence use, highlighting the need for improved evaluation methods for deep research agents.