Nils Schwager, Christoph Hau, Simon Münker, Achim Rettinger
原文摘要
When prompting language models for psychometric assessment, researchers assume that the responses reflect the injected persona and the meaning of the survey item. We test this premise using a diagnostic design that crosses five semantically distinct baseline personas with five semantically equivalent variants of each of four prompt components (persona wording, task instruction, item wording, option symbol). Measuring the 1-Wasserstein distance between the resulting response distributions and partitioning the variation among the five components allows for the separation of target effects from prompt artifacts. We apply the framework to 13 open-weight small language models (0.6B to 14B) on the Big Five Inventory and the Short Dark Triad. We find that in most models, the task instruction and option symbol displace response distributions further than paraphrasing the persona description or the item itself. For a substantial share of items, the artifact share of explained variation exceeds 50%; non-semantic changes of the prompt account for more response variation than the baseline personas. Our framework lets researchers quantify these prompt artifacts before interpreting psychometric output.
Nils Schwager, Simon Münker, Alistair Plum, Achim Rettinger
原文摘要
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, their operational validity is typically assessed through accuracy alone, implicitly treating human behavior as deterministic. We argue that on noisy digital trace data, a model's performance depends not only on predicting the correct outcome but on its calibration. We present a case study testing whether the token probabilities of open-weight LLMs can serve as confidence estimates in a Next Like Prediction task: predicting how a user of the Luxembourgish news platform RTL.lu rates a comment, conditioned on their prior interactions. Evaluating Ministral 3 (3B, 8B), we find that, with in-context learning only, the tested models are overconfident and are outperformed on accuracy and calibration by a simple statistical baseline. Accuracy and calibration do not move together: scaling from 3B to 8B improves accuracy while degrading calibration, and longer behavioral histories raise accuracy while confidence declines. Task-specific supervised fine-tuning acts as an effective calibration intervention, reducing Expected Calibration Error from 0.2 to 0.006 while improving accuracy from 0.536 to 0.758. We conclude that confidence estimation should be evaluated alongside accuracy to improve validity when using LLM-based agents.