Large language models are increasingly used as computational tools for modeling human-like behavior. We introduce a behavioral induction framework that modifies model policies through fine-tuning on structured decision-making tasks: using synthetic datasets inspired by maladaptive behavioral patterns, including depression and paranoia, we train transformer-based language models to consistently select specific classes of actions across diverse contexts. We then test whether this behavioral optimization produces systematic changes in generative distributions. Across two architectures, fine-tuned models show stable, context-general shifts in next-token probability distributions, including increased probability assigned to negative and threat-related interpretations in open-ended language tasks. These effects generalize beyond training contexts and are detectable in qualitative completions, psychometric-style evaluations, and quantitative distributional metrics such as Jensen-Shannon divergence. Induced behavioral profiles also show partial specificity. Models optimized for different behavioral patterns exhibit dissociable response tendencies across evaluation probes, suggesting that structured behavioral training produces differentiated policy-level biases rather than generic distributional skew. We interpret these findings as evidence that consistent behavioral optimization in LLMs can generate stable behavioral and distributional patterns consistent with altered latent priors, linking action selection and language generation. More broadly, the results support a view of LLMs as policy-based systems in which behavioral constraints shape emergent representational structure, highlighting their potential as controlled testbeds for studying the relationship between behavior, interpretation, and generative language in computational models of cognition.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act in interactive settings where their behavioral styles affect user experience, safety, and downstream decision making. Existing LLM personality studies largely rely on self-report questionnaires administered in first-person settings, making the resulting profiles sensitive to surface elicitation choices and poorly grounded in concrete model behavior. In this work, we introduce a situated behavioral-data (B-data) framework for studying and controlling LLM behavioral personality. We construct 3,200 contrastive behavioral scenarios spanning 20 behavioral patterns and four prompt registers, grounded in validated psychometric facets such as BFI-2, DOSPERT, and HEXACO. Using this framework, we find that LLMs exhibit stable and model-specific behavioral profiles, while also revealing register-dependent shifts across first-person decisions, advice-giving, and task execution. We then show that these behavioral patterns can be controlled through Behavioral Mode Axes (BMAs), activation-space directions derived from contrastive behavioral traces. Compared with response-derived BMAs, which are more prone to trait drift, thought-derived BMAs more faithfully capture the intended behavioral mechanism and provide cleaner control over situated behavioral styles. Our results suggest that LLM personality-like tendencies are better understood not as abstract self-report traits, but as measurable and controllable behavioral modes grounded in concrete interaction contexts. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/lhz191/LLM-Behavioral-Personality.
Post-training can substantially alter language-model behavior, yet aggregate behavior rates do not reveal whether training removes an existing mechanism, creates a new one, or changes how an inherited mechanism is used. We study this question through two mechanistically distinct failures, repetition as a decoding-attractor pathology and sycophancy as a preference-related alignment failure. We introduce behavioral manifold analysis, which isolates behavior-specific geometry by selecting sparse behavior-associated coordinates and lifting them into low-dimensional local charts. We construct these charts in two complementary spaces. ACT captures runtime activation states, while NOC quantifies how strongly the model routes functional information flow through the shared behavior-associated subspace. Across multiple model families, the resulting charts are highly compressed and partially alignable across architectures. Contribution-space charts expose a more architecture-robust shared core, whereas activation-space charts retain stronger family-specific structure. Tracking these charts through controlled post-training reveals a consistent asymmetry. Supervised fine-tuning substantially alters the inherited behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization changes behavior while largely preserving the underlying chart. This geometric perspective provides a unified framework for understanding the mechanistic distinction between the two objectives. SFT tends to rewrite behavioral geometry, whereas reward optimization primarily reweights it. Code is available at https://github.com/ronglingze/Manifold-Analysis