跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+6108新增论文
+5221其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 04:57 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 04:38各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 05:05 — 2026-11-05 05:05(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-05 04:57最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 04:38库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

14,785 已收录论文12,896 AI 相关3,088 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 04:55(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.35179

High Scores, Hidden Failures: Evaluating Codebook-Based LLM Content Analysis

Elena Senger, Yuri Campbell, Rob van der Goot, Barbara Plank

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for codebook-based content analysis in computational social science, where codebooks translate theoretical concepts into labeling schemes. While prior work reports strong predictive performance, it remains unclear whether these systems produce reliable and robust text annotations. We conduct a large-scale empirical failure-mode analysis of LLM-based coding pipelines across four datasets and five models by systematically evaluating their stability, robustness, and conceptual validity under controlled perturbations, domain shifts, and optimization procedures. We uncover multiple failure modes that are largely invisible under standard metrics, showing that high aggregate scores frequently coexist with severe label-level disparities, instability across runs, domain sensitivity, and shifts in label interpretation. Importantly, these failure modes persist under widely used optimization strategies and remain largely invisible under standard metrics such as accuracy and micro-F1. Our results demonstrate that current LLM-based coding pipelines cannot be treated as stable measurement tools without targeted validation beyond aggregate performance.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.CY
arXiv ↗PDF ↗