AIPsychoBench: Understanding the Psychometric Differences between LLMs and Humans

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.16530v1
• Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2025 04:40:31 GMT
• Title: AIPsychoBench: Understanding the Psychometric Differences between LLMs and Humans
• Authors: Wei Xie, Shuoyoucheng Ma, Zhenhua Wang, Enze Wang, Kai Chen, Xiaobing Sun, Baosheng Wang,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) with hundreds of billions of parameters have exhibited human-like intelligence by learning from vast amounts of internet-scale data.<n>This paper introduces AIPsychoBench, a specialized benchmark tailored to assess the psychological properties of LLM.
• Score: 15.572185318032139
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) with hundreds of billions of parameters have exhibited human-like intelligence by learning from vast amounts of internet-scale data. However, the uninterpretability of large-scale neural networks raises concerns about the reliability of LLM. Studies have attempted to assess the psychometric properties of LLMs by borrowing concepts from human psychology to enhance their interpretability, but they fail to account for the fundamental differences between LLMs and humans. This results in high rejection rates when human scales are reused directly. Furthermore, these scales do not support the measurement of LLM psychological property variations in different languages. This paper introduces AIPsychoBench, a specialized benchmark tailored to assess the psychological properties of LLM. It uses a lightweight role-playing prompt to bypass LLM alignment, improving the average effective response rate from 70.12% to 90.40%. Meanwhile, the average biases are only 3.3% (positive) and 2.1% (negative), which are significantly lower than the biases of 9.8% and 6.9%, respectively, caused by traditional jailbreak prompts. Furthermore, among the total of 112 psychometric subcategories, the score deviations for seven languages compared to English ranged from 5% to 20.2% in 43 subcategories, providing the first comprehensive evidence of the linguistic impact on the psychometrics of LLM.

Related papers

• Mitigating the Threshold Priming Effect in Large Language Model-Based Relevance Judgments via Personality Infusing [25.77984485421331]
  We investigate how Big Five personality profiles in LLMs influence priming in relevance labeling.<n>Our results show that certain profiles, such as High Openness and Low Neuroticism, consistently reduce priming susceptibility.<n>The most effective personality in mitigating priming may vary across models and task types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-29T08:37:51Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Beyond Scale: Small Language Models are Comparable to GPT-4 in Mental Health Understanding [12.703061322251093]
  Small Language Models (SLMs) are privacy-preserving alternatives to Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This paper investigates the mental health understanding capabilities of current SLMs through systematic evaluation across classification tasks.<n>Our work highlights the potential of SLMs in mental health understanding, showing they can be effective privacy-preserving tools for analyzing sensitive online text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-09T02:40:02Z)
• SLAM: Towards Efficient Multilingual Reasoning via Selective Language Alignment [78.4550589538805]
  We propose an efficient multilingual reasoning alignment approach that precisely identifies and fine-tunes the layers responsible for handling multilingualism.<n> Experimental results show that our method, SLAM, only tunes 6 layers' feed-forward sub-layers including 6.5-8% of all parameters within 7B and 13B LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T10:29:43Z)
• Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variables [0.3441021278275805]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly reach real-world applications, necessitating a better understanding of their behaviour. Recent studies administering psychometric questionnaires to LLMs report human-like traits in LLMs, potentially influencing behaviour. This approach suffers from a validity problem: it presupposes that these traits exist in LLMs and that they are measurable with tools designed for humans. This study investigates this problem by comparing latent structures of personality between humans and three LLMs using two validated personality questionnaires.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T12:42:35Z)
• Leveraging LLM-Respondents for Item Evaluation: a Psychometric Analysis [4.59804401179409]
  We explore using six different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama 2, Llama 3, Gemini-Pro, and Cohere Command R Plus) to produce responses with psychometric properties similar to human answers. Results show that some LLMs have comparable or higher proficiency in College Algebra than college students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T16:49:26Z)
• LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Query [62.29558761326031]
  Humans have a self-awareness process that allows us to recognize what we don't know when faced with queries. This paper investigates whether Large Language Models can estimate their own hallucination risk before response generation. By a probing estimator, we leverage LLM self-assessment, achieving an average hallucination estimation accuracy of 84.32% at run time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T17:08:52Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics.<n>Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching.<n>Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• "Knowing When You Don't Know": A Multilingual Relevance Assessment Dataset for Robust Retrieval-Augmented Generation [90.09260023184932]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure relevance assessment using: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)
• Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models [32.31556074470733]
  We find that instruction tuning does not always make large language models human-like from a cognitive modeling perspective. Next-word probabilities estimated by instruction-tuned LLMs are often worse at simulating human reading behavior than those estimated by base LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T17:19:14Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.