arXiv subjects

Daniele Barolo

Publications and source records attributed to Daniele Barolo.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right Prompts

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Tokens To Agents: A Researcher's Guide To Understanding Large Language Models

Researchers face a critical choice: how to use -- or not use -- large language models in their work. Using them well requires understanding the mechanisms that shape what LLMs can and cannot do. This chapter makes LLMs comprehensible without requiring technical expertise, breaking down six essential components: pre-training data, tokenization and embeddings, transformer architecture, probabilistic generation, alignment, and agentic capabilities. Each component is analyzed through both technical foundations and research implications, identifying specific affordances and limitations. Rather than prescriptive guidance, the chapter develops a framework for reasoning critically about whether and how LLMs fit specific research needs, finally illustrated through an extended case study on simulating social media dynamics with LLM-based agents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Whose Name Comes Up? Auditing LLM-Based Scholar Recommendations

This paper evaluates the performance of six open-weight LLMs (llama3-8b, llama3.1-8b, gemma2-9b, mixtral-8x7b, llama3-70b, llama3.1-70b) in recommending experts in physics across five tasks: top-k experts by field, influential scientists by discipline, epoch, seniority, and scholar counterparts. The evaluation examines consistency, factuality, and biases related to gender, ethnicity, academic popularity, and scholar similarity. Using ground-truth data from the American Physical Society and OpenAlex, we establish scholarly benchmarks by comparing model outputs to real-world academic records. Our analysis reveals inconsistencies and biases across all models. mixtral-8x7b produces the most stable outputs, while llama3.1-70b shows the highest variability. Many models exhibit duplication, and some, particularly gemma2-9b and llama3.1-8b, struggle with formatting errors. LLMs generally recommend real scientists, but accuracy drops in field-, epoch-, and seniority-specific queries, consistently favoring senior scholars. Representation biases persist, replicating gender imbalances (reflecting male predominance), under-representing Asian scientists, and over-representing White scholars. Despite some diversity in institutional and collaboration networks, models favor highly cited and productive scholars, reinforcing the rich-getricher effect while offering limited geographical representation. These findings highlight the need to improve LLMs for more reliable and equitable scholarly recommendations.

cs.CY↗