Behavioral Reprogramming of Open-Weights Models: Cognitive Plasticity and Alignment Bounds

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 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.

Adapting large language models (LLMs) to downstream tasks via full fine-tuning is increasingly impractical due to its computational and memory demands. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) approaches such as Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) mitigate this by confining updates to a compact set of trainable parameters, but this aggressive reduction often sacrifices generalization, especially under transfer across heterogeneous tasks and domains. We revisit the tension between parameter efficiency and adaptation capacity, and ask whether the two are truly at odds. We answer in the negative by introducing LoRA-Over, a framework grounded in a simple principle: enrich the optimization landscape during training, then collapse the enrichment at inference. LoRA-Over injects auxiliary parameters into the low-rank adapters during training to broaden the effective hypothesis space, and through a decomposition-based reformulation folds them back into a standard low-rank structure with negligible reconstruction error, keeping inference cost identical to vanilla LoRA. Since not all weight matrices benefit equally from added capacity, we further propose two scheduling strategies, one statically predefined and one dynamically determined at runtime, that direct extra capacity where most needed. We evaluate LoRA-Over on language understanding (GLUE, T5-Base), dialogue (MT-Bench), arithmetic reasoning (GSM8K), and code generation (HumanEval), using LLaMA 2-7B and LLaMA 3.1-8B. Across all benchmarks and scales, LoRA-Over consistently outperforms vanilla LoRA, showing that principled over-parameterization designed to vanish at inference is an effective lever for improving PEFT generalization. Code will be released upon acceptance.