AI Psychometrics: Evaluating the Psychological Reasoning of Large Language Models with Psychometric Validities

Psychological instruments designed for humans are increasingly used to assign large language models (LLMs) stable psychological profiles that affect their usability, safety assessment, and use as proxies for human participants in research. Using a formal psychometric framework, we show that these profiles are largely a measurement artifact. Administering a battery of personality and risk-preference instruments spanning self-reports and behavioral tasks to 56 instruction-tuned LLMs alongside large human reference samples, we report four findings. First, differences between models are driven not by the traits an instrument targets but by a directional response bias, a tendency to respond toward one end of the scale, or one labeled option, regardless of item content; a variance decomposition attributes 81-90% of between-model variation to this bias, against 9-16% in humans. Second, the bias declines with model capability but is not eliminated by it. Third, because bias rather than trait drives responding, an instrument's apparent reliability is almost entirely predicted by its response orthogonality, a term we coin for the proportion of items for which trait and bias point in opposite directions. Fourth, the profile a model appears to have shifts with the items used and can be manufactured through item selection. These results demonstrate that the apparent psychological profiles of LLMs are artifacts of the instrument used to measure them, not properties of the models themselves. As instruments borrowed from human psychology are rarely fully orthogonal and may inherently lack validity for LLMs, we call for dedicated assessments centered on response orthogonality.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate human decisions and communication, yet their behavioural regularities remain difficult to characterize systematically. We develop a cross-linguistic psychometric profiling framework and evaluate nine LLMs using seven psychological instruments, with five repeated administrations per model and language in Chinese and English. Items unresolved after a prespecified retry procedure are retained as NA. Joint analysis of scored and NA responses captures response tendencies and boundaries of self-report applicability. LLMs exhibit structured, model-specific profiles despite a shared alignment-shaped pattern of higher prosocial and self-regulatory responses and lower dominance, disengagement and harmful-intent endorsement. NA responses are structured rather than uniformly distributed, indicating where outputs are treated as inapplicable, refused or cannot be mapped to valid response options. Language condition and provider origin are associated with profile configuration and answerability, whereas repeated administrations show high reproducibility and permit recovery of model identity. Human-reference and prompt-robustness analyses further indicate that these signatures are context dependent. Joint analysis of psychometric profiling and answerability offers a framework for quantifying deployment-level behavioural signatures.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to simulate human behavior, acting as computational replicas of human subjects. Yet the lived psychological experience of humans is difficult to benchmark, particularly as it unfolds over time. We introduce a psychometric benchmark for computational replicas: personas that carry a fixed identity through an evolving sequence of events. Built entirely from published norms and meta-analytic effects, the benchmark scores two dimensions of psychological realism. The first, internal validity, quantifies whether generated trajectories reproduce the internal structure of repeated human measurement: distributions, the between- versus within-person variance partition, temporal dependence, and range. The second, external validity, quantifies whether replicas recover established trait, state, and indicator relations. Across 36 open-weight and proprietary LLMs from nine developers (1B-671B parameters), most recover the direction of established relations (84.3% mean agreement) and the variance partition (26 of 34), yet the within-person correlation and distributional structure elude recovery. Internal validity is independent of scale and capability: a mid-size open LLM (Gemma-3-27B) strikes the best trade-off between the two dimensions. The benchmark is a precondition for using computational replicas in causal inference across domains (e.g., marketing, healthcare), and identifies within-person grounding as the central challenge ahead.