Christian Pipal | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

What Does the Model See? Representation Validity in Multimodal LLM-Based Video Analysis

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) allow social scientists to analyze video at scale, but researchers must decide which parts of a video to provide as input. We use the term representation validity to examine how text, audio, video, and combined inputs affect measurement and subsequent analysis. We compare input representations across six open-weight MLLMs and three human-annotated video datasets. No representation consistently performs best. On seven news-related constructs, native-video performance varies little across models (macro-F1 = .70-.77), while extracted-text performance ranges from .52 to .80. Three models perform better with text and three with video. Combining inputs rarely improves performance. Higher classification accuracy also does not reliably produce estimates closer to those based on human codes. The highest-F1 representation best reproduces human-coded regression coefficients in 17 of 42 comparisons. Even when each model uses its highest-F1 deployable representation, 45% of sample-prevalence estimates differ from the human-coded benchmark by more than ten percentage points. Input representation therefore requires validation for both the construct being measured and the quantity estimated from the resulting labels.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Researchers waste 80% of LLM annotation costs by classifying one text at a time

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for text classification across the social sciences, yet researchers overwhelmingly classify one text per variable per prompt. Coding 100,000 texts on four variables requires 400,000 API calls. Batching 25 items and stacking all variables into a single prompt reduces this to 4,000 calls, cutting token costs by over 80%. Whether this degrades coding quality is unknown. We tested eight production LLMs from four providers on 3,962 expert-coded tweets across four tasks, varying batch size from 1 to 1,000 items and stacking up to 25 coding dimensions per prompt. Six of eight models maintained accuracy within 2 pp of the single-item baseline through batch sizes of 100. Variable stacking with up to 10 dimensions produced results comparable to single-variable coding, with degradation driven by task complexity rather than prompt length. Within this safe operating range, the measurement error from batching and stacking is smaller than typical inter-coder disagreement in the ground-truth data.

cs.CL↗