Psychology

Automated visual analysis opens new avenues for behavior--based psychological measurement. Nevertheless, existing technological modules are typically scattered across task specific systems with heterogeneous interfaces and disparate deployment requirements. In this work, we present SeetaPsych v1.0, an open source, unified and extensible computer vision toolkit designed to extract psychologically relevant signals from facial images and/or face based videos. The current release encompasses four major core modules aiming at behavior--based physiological perception: unified face based emotion analysis (simultaneous facial expression recognition, facial action unit detection, and valence--arousal estimation), camera based heart rate estimation, screen point--of--gaze estimation, and scene gaze following. A suite of auxiliary preprocessing modules for human centric visual analysis is also included, comprising face detection, facial landmark detection, and head detection. These functionalities are encapsulated within a modular Pipeline/Runner architecture that automatically resolves attribute dependencies, constructs computation graphs, and support intermediate result sharing among modules. SeetaPsych provides standardized Python APIs to facilitate reproducible, large scale analyses, alongside an interactive WebUI for rapid, code--free method evaluation. Overall, SeetaPsych offers an integrated and accessible visual measurement platform for research in psychology, behavioral science, human computer interaction, and related fields.

Cultural upheavals impact many aspects of social life, and many studies have investigated their impact on language patterns. However, few investigations have isolated the impact of upheavals on individuals at scale in popular media. The current work evaluated millions of song lyrics spanning more than a century in search of within-artist and between-artist signals of distress from the Vietnam War, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and COVID-19. Compared to a five-year baseline, rates of self-references - a marker of psychological distancing - were significantly reduced after the Vietnam War and September 11th. Cognitive processing terms were elevated post-upheaval vs. pre-upheaval, which indicated artists' increased attempts to make meaning from such massive disruptions. Content patterns corroborated these findings as artists wrote more about "life and freedom" (societal conditions) and less about "courtship and nightlife" (interpersonal connection) following the upheavals. Cultural upheavals modify individual and collective verbal behavior, demonstrating their far-reaching impact on society.

Multidimensional item response theory (MIRT) is a statistical test theory that precisely estimates multiple latent skills of learners from the responses in a test. Both compensatory and non-compensatory models have been proposed for MIRT: the former assumes that each skill can complement other skills, whereas the latter assumes they cannot. This non-compensatory assumption is convincing in many tests that measure multiple skills; therefore, applying non-compensatory models to such data is crucial for achieving unbiased and accurate estimation. In contrast to tests, latent skills will change over time in daily learning. To monitor the growth of skills, dynamical extensions of MIRT models have been investigated. However, most of them assumed compensatory models, and a model that can reproduce continuous latent states of skills under the non-compensatory assumption has not been proposed thus far. To enable accurate skill tracing under the non-compensatory assumption, we propose a dynamical extension of non-compensatory MIRT models by combining a linear dynamical system and a non-compensatory model. This results in a complicated posterior of skills, which we approximate with a Gaussian distribution by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the approximated posterior and the true posterior. The learning algorithm for the model parameters is derived through Monte Carlo expectation maximization. Simulation studies verify that the proposed method is able to reproduce latent skills accurately, whereas the dynamical compensatory model suffers from significant underestimation errors. Furthermore, experiments on an actual data set demonstrate that our dynamical non-compensatory model can infer practical skill tracing and clarify differences in skill tracing between non-compensatory and compensatory models.

Although MMLU is widely adopted as a benchmark for calibrating general AI capabilities, we psychometrically demonstrate that its aggregate score primarily evaluates a model's factual retrieval capacity rather than its reasoning ability. By calibrating item difficulty for 1,000 open-weights language models over 14,042 MMLU test items using Item Response Theory, we show that evaluating both abilities via a single test is inherently flawed. Difficulty is then regressed on a deterministic, text-extractable framework of structural complexity. Applying a joint Wald test with subject-clustered covariances demonstrates that the MMLU conflates fundamentally separable constructs. The mapping from structural complexity to difficulty is not invariant across the benchmark's STEM and non-STEM partitions. This finding has practical consequences. Aggregate leaderboard ranks track non-STEM accuracy more closely than STEM accuracy, so selecting a Top-50 model on the aggregate for a reasoning-intensive deployment displaces roughly 22% of the STEM-appropriate choices. Furthermore, when controlling for the multiple-choice guessing floor natively inside the response model, we find that higher-ability models continue to degrade more steeply under increased reasoning depth. The MMLU aggregate therefore weights retrieval capacity and reasoning stability unequally, inadvertently favoring models optimized for retrieval. We release our deterministic framework as a reproducible auditing instrument and recommend disaggregated reporting.

Large language models (LLMs) are used to simulate human participants in psychological research. We asked whether LLMs that reproduce human evaluations of a whistleblower's moral character also reproduce the motive attributions that accompany them. Five LLMs and two human samples (N = 125 and N = 742) evaluated a physician who either remained silent about fraudulent billing or reported it to a hospital, regulator, or newspaper. Models reproduced the human ranking of the physician's moral character but portrayed whistleblowers as more helpful, less self-interested, and less hostile. In four of five models, competitive motives were less strongly associated with moral-character judgments. Model ratings changed little when prompts reproduced the narratives and demographic profiles of both human samples, although this comparison cannot isolate a perspective effect. Thus, agreement in average ratings can conceal differences in attributed motives, relationships among judgments, and sensitivity to context. Validating LLMs as simulated participants therefore requires testing psychologically informative response patterns, not average agreement alone.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to augment software engineering (SE) workflows. While code generation remains the main use case, organizations are actively seeking AI integration in other practices such as test cases generation and code reviews. Organizational AI adoption strategies seem to focus on tangible outcomes such as productivity. However, AI is a disruptive force, introduced into settings where role identity, team norms, and the sources of job satisfaction were well established before the recent advances in generative AI. Historically, technological disruptions have caused psychological and social strains in workplaces, ranging from anxiety and eroded meaning to deskilling and disrupted professional identities. The assumption that AI for SE is cost-free may not be accurate. Therefore, in this study we sought to understand the psychological costs software professionals experience during organizational AI adoption. We carried out a case study in a large software development services company, one year after the company launched its AI adoption. We collected qualitative data through meetings and semi-structured interviews (N = 21). We found that software professionals experience accountability anxiety, craft identity disruption, meaning and satisfaction erosion, cognitive and workload intensification, and uncertainty distress. Practitioners manage these costs through practices that restore control, mitigate them through protective and identity-preserving adaptations, or absorb them, carrying what neither can resolve. We contribute to AI-human collaboration in SE by repositioning AI adoption as a human transition, not only a technological and organizational one.

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

Item-sensitivity, defined as whether a model's choice depends on the specific input rather than on its own output prior, is widely reported as evidence of task competence. We show this evidence is necessary but not sufficient using a forced-choice signalling task abstracted from the board game Deception: Murder in Hong Kong. In this environment, the reference points against which a coordinate should be judged (a fit-maximising strategy, a posterior-maximising strategy, and uniform random selection) are all computable in closed form. Across seven language models, two model families, a post-training ablation, and three independent scoring rules, every one of 21 model-by-rule cells is reliably item-sensitive. Yet 8 of those 21 cells are not statistically distinguishable from a chooser that ignores the item and selects at random, and 5 score worse than random at describing the target. Item-sensitivity and distance from random correlate at only r = 0.30. We call this consistency without alignment and argue it generalises to any evaluation that relies on item-sensitivity, permutation consistency, or self-consistency without an independent reference for the measured quantity. We further find that a literal-similarity baseline with no pragmatics outperforms most tested language models, that adding a pragmatic layer over two baseline similarity sources moves choosers toward random rather than toward the Bayesian reference, and that a standard labelled multiple-choice format carries no measurable content signal here. All results represent the model side of a pre-registered instrument; a matched human condition is designed and piloted but not yet collected.

Small leaderboard gaps are often interpreted as evidence that one language model is better than another, but their sign may depend on which benchmark items are included. We test this using item-level responses from five benchmarks and a family-label-free spectral approximation to multidimensional item-response theory (MIRT). In owner-disjoint folds, one owner half identifies items with low residual differential item functioning across model families (low-DIF); the resulting frozen, source- and easiness-balanced weights score models in the other half, while equally short matched-random subtests control for generic subtest variation. Full-benchmark and low-DIF rankings remain strongly correlated ($τ_b=.900$--$.948$). Yet in four of five benchmarks, 30.9--47.1% of cross-family pairs initially within one percentage point reverse order, exceeding their matched-random medians by 16.9--28.6 percentage points (all $p=.001$). The fifth benchmark shows no reliable excess ($-0.9$ points, $p=.689$). The pattern survives all pre-specified population perturbations, and residual item--family signatures replicate across owner halves; however, no family shows a consistent advantage across benchmarks. Thus, globally stable rankings can still leave individual near-tie orderings sensitive to benchmark composition, and sub-one-point leaderboard gaps should be accompanied by evidence that the implied ordering is composition-robust.

Psychometric questionnaires contain rich item-level information, yet it remains unclear whether different representation learning objectives recover the same latent organization. We investigated this question using 757 matched teacher-child pairs from the baseline assessment of the Cyprus ProW preschool trial. Behavioral structure was characterized from child SDQ, ASBI, and CBRS item responses using principal component analysis and clustering, yielding four behavioral phenotypes. A contrastive objective substantially improved teacher-child retrieval relative to PCA-based representations, increasing Top-1 accuracy from 0.13% to 7.27% and Top-10 accuracy from 1.98% to 56.14%. However, contrastive representations preserved behavioral phenotype structure less effectively than PCA-based representations. A multi-task objective jointly optimizing alignment and behavioral prediction partially restored behavioral organization but reduced retrieval performance. These findings indicate that teacher-child correspondence and behavioral phenotypes represent distinct forms of latent organization and demonstrate that the latent structure recovered from linked psychometric data depends on the representation learning objective.

This paper studies multiple fixed points in a discrete-time hysteresis neural network. The network consists of binary hysteresis neurons characterized by the threshold parameter. Depending on the parameter, the network can have a variety of multiple binary fixed points. Stability of each fixed point is characterized by basin of attraction (BOA): the set of initial points falling into the fixed point. In order to evaluate the distribution of BOA sizes, we present entropy. In order to escape from the curse of dimensionality, we introduce a simple problem: classification of binary data set. In the classification, BOAs correspond to classes. In the problem, we clarify that the threshold parameter can control the entropy, especially, can maximize the entropy: the distribution approaches to uniform. As a concrete example, we consider an item response data set in education. Using two fundamental metrics in the item response theory, the classification results are evaluated.

We present results from reconstructing multiple-choice model (MCM) and three-parameter logistic (3PL) model curves using a fine-tuned multimodal large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3.5. The model is prompted and fine-tuned to replicate choice probabilities across a large training corpus of multiple-choice items containing both image and text stimuli, conditioned on a labeled set of student ability levels. By learning to reproduce the systematic error patterns of students across a discrete range of abilities, the LLM implicitly captures the underlying response probabilities encoded in the 3PL and MCM curves. This allows us to accurately approximate item difficulty on a held-out test set directly from the model's predicted option probabilities.

Cognitive decision-making research depends on diverse scenarios with carefully controlled complexity, yet manual production is slow, inconsistent, and biased. We developed an automated pipeline that uses LLms to generate structured decision scenarios and validates their complexity through a composite framework rooted in established task-complexity theory. We evaluated 4,238 scenarios across multiple domains and complexity tiers. Measurement validation met rigorous psychometric standards. Agreement among five independent model families was nearly perfect, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.997 and a kappa of 0.971. Known-groups validity demonstrated large separation between tiers, with an eta-squared of 0.587 and all pairwise comparisons significant at p less than .001. Factor analysis revealed a dominant complexity construct, with loadings between 0.87 and 0.96 across three frameworks, while interactivity formed a weaker secondary dimension at 0.34. Discriminant validity was limited by a strong relationship between complexity and text length that persisted after controlling for tier, yielding a partial correlation of 0.86. This constrains construct purity but does not undermine the instrument's tier-grading function. Model analyses showed a negative association between throughput and schema pass rate (r = -0.967, p = .007, n = 5), suggesting a speed-quality trade-off, though largely driven by one high-throughput model. Llama 4 Maverick generated scenarios fastest at 134 per minute versus 25 for DeepSeek Chat V3.2, but underproduced complex-tier scenarios, whereas DeepSeek Chat V3.2 balanced domain coverage with high schema compliance. The system demonstrated strong psychometric properties, enabling reliable classification into Simple, Moderate, and Complex tiers and providing the measurement infrastructure needed for downstream cognitive assessment of AI systems

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

Human-like cognition does not select past experience by topical similarity alone: affective significance and unresolved conflict also shape what becomes accessible. We present PsychoAgent, a cognitive architecture for LLM agents that separates factual and affective memory and integrates both through a conflict-aware executive controller. Affective memories are first filtered by semantic relevance and then re-ranked by salience, preserving topical fit while allowing emotionally important traces to enter the prompt. Across three controlled conflict scenarios, the full architecture retrieved more conflict-critical memories than semantic-affective and single-memory RAG baselines (0.933 vs. 0.500 and 0.667), with a small semantic-similarity cost. Five blinded raters evaluated 27 outputs. After within-rater standardization, the full architecture had the highest overall mean (+0.22 SD), but corrected pairwise differences were not significant. A three-day illustrative trace further shows persistent affect, offline memory recombination, and selective memory reweighting. The findings support affect-sensitive retrieval as an inspectable mechanism for modeling human-like conflict effects in LLM agents.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models predicting mental health outcomes rarely specify what they measure: contextual knowledge, emotional content, or syntactic structure. NLP Psychometrics treats psychological prediction from text as a psychometric problem, linking scores to interpretable linguistic evidence and testing beyond the training text format. Nine LLMs, conditioned on controlled personas (cognitive digital shadows), completed psychometric questionnaires with textual explanations per item. We extracted emotional profiles and syntactic-semantic structure via textual forma mentis networks, combined with personality and sociodemographic variables in ablated random forest (RF) regressors, using SHAP to identify which features drove performance and in which direction. Full RF models explained up to 70.8% of variance in life satisfaction (SWLS), 55.7% in depression (PHQ-9), and, for DASS-21, 68.5% depression, 76.0% anxiety, 72.4% stress. Sociodemographics alone explained no meaningful variance in depression, anxiety, or stress, but did so for life satisfaction, where emotion features and income were the strongest predictors; neuroticism and network topology instead dominated depression and anxiety, reversing direction between them. Without retraining, RF models separated diaries from low- and high-score personas ($r$ up to 0.91) and, using only network/emotion features, classified clinical from control participants in real transcripts with up to 68% accuracy. These results show the promise and limits of synthetic data: LLM personas can expose model biases, recover patterns consistent with clinical rumination, and support psychometric prediction from human text without a matched questionnaire, but cannot substitute for human validation. NLP Psychometrics makes these distinctions explicit, measurable, and testable through interpretable AI and network/emotional features.

Automated item evaluation (AIE) refers to the use of computational methods to assess item quality without requiring manual expert review or field testing of the items under evaluation. We aimed to build a near-comprehensive AIE model by predicting item acceptance and rejection from item text using historical rejection data from a large-scale standardized testing program. The dataset contained 52,759 English language arts (ELA) and mathematics items with 34% permanently rejected from future operational use. Rejection reasons included poor psychometric properties, content issues, bias and sensitivity concerns, and non-content issues. We fine-tuned a DeBERTaV3-large classifier on raw item text, a second DeBERTa classifier on Qwen3-generated item critiques, and a fusion model combining representations from both. The fusion model achieved the strongest overall performance (Accuracy = .75, F1 = .64, AUC = .80, Sensitivity = .64, Specificity = .81). Prediction for math (F1 = .73, AUC = .86) was considerably more accurate than ELA (F1 = .51, AUC = .72). Lowering the decision threshold from .5 to .25 raised average sensitivity for ELA and math to .88 and .91, while reducing specificity to .31 and .56, respectively, which may be preferable in automated item generation contexts where generating items is cheaper than evaluating them. Incorporating item critiques alongside raw item text improved performance across most rejection reasons. The model assigned higher rejection probabilities to more difficult items. However, the fusion model struggled to identify items flagged for bias, sensitivity, fairness, or accessibility, especially for ELA. These findings suggest that text-based AIE is feasible in some areas and may offer a practical tool for reducing the burden of manual review and field testing, while also underscoring the importance of human review for items with fairness concerns.

Language models differ in how safely they behave and these differences are measured by safety benchmarks. But aggregated benchmark scores are hard to trust and interpret, because benchmarks duplicate one another, correlate heavily, and models may sandbag when they detect evaluation. To address these issues, we draw on Item Response Theory (IRT), a statistical toolkit for measuring these latents from performance on items with inferred psychometric properties. We fit IRT models to eight safety benchmarks across 192 language models, the largest psychometric analysis of LLM safety evaluations to date, and contribute three results. First, we find that three interpretable factors of refusal strictness, truthfulness, and contextual harm explain most of the variance between models across benchmarks. Second, psychometrically selected items recover full benchmark scores with lower error than random subsets of the same size, and roughly ten adaptively chosen items suffice for several individual benchmarks, cutting evaluation cost by 97-99%. Third, IRT supports audits of individual models, showing that it can be used to detect naive sandbagging and changes of model behind APIs. Overall, we show IRT is a ready-made toolkit for reading, reducing, and auditing safety benchmarks, which we recommend frontier labs and evaluators adopt.

Mental health professionals have raised concerns about risks of psychological harm from interaction with large language models (LLMs), including "delusional spirals" in which concerning human and LLM behaviors reinforce each other over time. With growing public use of LLM-powered chatbots, there is an urgent need to build evaluations grounded in real-world episodes of psychological harm experienced by users. We developed DelusionEval, an evaluation protocol that tests a model's tendencies to exhibit behaviors linked to promoting user delusions. We prompt each model with 589 unique conversation histories from 18 participants, comprising 12,591 messages from users who experienced delusions and psychological harm. We find that the tendency of an evaluated LLM to exhibit delusion-linked behavior does not reliably correlate with model size, release date, or the presence of test-time reasoning. However, extending the context of prior messages substantially increases rates of delusion-linked behaviors, providing evidence for the importance of context in LLM safety evaluation. For example, the rate of failing to discourage self-harm when the user expresses suicidal ideation increases from 30.0% to 41.1% when an additional 350 messages are prepended to the conversation history. All model families (e.g., GPT, Claude) exhibit substantial rates of delusion-linked behaviors. Within families, later, larger, or higher-reasoning models are not uniformly better across all behavior categories. Our results raise concerns regarding the potential psychological impact of LLMs and the need for more rigorous studies of real-world human-AI interaction.

Black-box language-model reliability is commonly pursued by sampling, prompting, voting, verifying, or iteratively revising individual answers. We ask a prior question: \emph{what determines whether a collection of black-box responses is recoverable at all?} We represent responses to typed transformations of a query as a \emph{relational response field} (RRF). Edge transports encode how valid responses must change under paraphrase, scaling, decomposition, refactoring, or other task symmetries; anchors encode independently trusted evidence such as execution or a verifier. For relation operator $D$, anchor operator $A$, and at most $k$ corrupted response nodes, we identify $γ_k(D,A)$ as the intrinsic difficulty of black-box response recovery. It is positive exactly when every $k$-node corruption is identifiable; it gives a deterministic stability bound proportional to $1/γ_k$; and a matching two-point minimax lower bound shows that no estimator can improve this dependence. Thus consistency is not truth: relation-only methods are blind to null directions, including shared hallucinations. We derive sparse field-repair algorithms while separating information-theoretic identifiability from the stronger null-space conditions required by convex optimization. Controlled theorem tests and black-box mathematics/code experiments evaluate four theory-fixed consequences: consistency--truth separation, anchor phase transitions, redundancy saturation, and cross-model, cross-task prediction of repair difficulty. The results support $γ_k(D,A)$ as a measurable property of a response-recovery instance, rather than a score attached to one repair heuristic.

Most multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) only by whether they select the correct answers. This binary scoring treats all incorrect responses alike, even though an LLM's preferences among incorrect options may contain systematic and useful information about its behavior and ability. We introduce the LLM Nominal Response Model (LLM-NRM), an option-aware psychometric framework that models the full distribution over answer choices to jointly estimate LLM ability and option-level item characteristics, while separating model-specific response calibration sharpness, positional preference, and difficulty-dependent fallback behavior. Across 189 LLMs and 31,554 items from 14 benchmarks, LLM-NRM predicts held-out LLM-item interactions more accurately than binary Item Response models and conventional nominal-response baselines, and its ability estimates achieve the strongest Spearman correlation of 0.920 with the external human-preference Arena.ai Elo leaderboard. Distractor identity contributes +101% additional Fisher Information per item beyond correctness, and incorrect responses alone recover full-information ability estimates with Spearman 0.943. The learned item parameters also enable efficient benchmarking, where 41 selected items preserve the full-bank ranking with Kendall's correlation 0.85, corresponding to a 770 times reduction. In conclusion, we show that incorrect answers carry distinct and useful measurement information rather than representing equivalent mistakes.

LLM companions are deployed at scale in personally consequential settings, yet poorly evaluated. Existing benchmarks use hand-authored scenarios and prompted simulators, aggregate empathy into one score, and overlook judge biases such as same-family favoritism and scale drift. We introduce CompanionBench, an interactive bilingual benchmark. To our knowledge, it is the first companion benchmark to ground both its scenarios and a trained user simulator in de-identified real-world data. A hidden disclosure gate branches each persona's trajectory on the agent's own behavior, controlling the interaction state space without scripting dialogue. We operationalize ten capabilities derived from 25 theories across psychology and counseling, four of them not graded explicitly by prior work: holding ambiguity, selfobject responsiveness, positive resonance and calibrated challenge. Agents are assessed on two complementary axes: a subjective ten-capability rubric and a deterministic measure of whether deeper disclosure was earned. A cross-family panel dilutes same-family favoritism; an Item Response Theory model separates agent quality from judge severity. Theory fixes what to measure and how personas are structured; real data supply events, history, and profiles -- coverage from theory, authenticity from data. Rankings are reproducible in both languages (rho = 0.996 ZH / 0.953 EN). Evaluating 28 agents reveals capability-level differences obscured by aggregate scores. Emotion regulation and calibrated challenge remain common weaknesses; holding ambiguity discriminates most. Role-play agents rank near the bottom: immersion does not imply relational competence. Across agents, the dominant failure mode is substituting surface warmth for substantive relational support. We will release 500 Chinese-English parallel pairs and the evaluation code.

What do a language model's hidden states say about the organization of a single text? From one forward pass, without training, we score every token position on two properties. The aggregator measures whether the position consolidates the whole text into a stable configuration. The differentiator, whether other tokens are transiently carried into its subspace as the model reads: metaphor in its root sense, transport. Constants were frozen on one discovery text; every other is confirmatory. The aggregator is not, in the classic sense, an information measure, nor a measure of salience. Across three unrelated models, as a signifier repeats, its surprisal and its attention drain while its aggregator score holds: the channel marks a token's place in the text. That this tracks a reading rests on independent ground truth: an engineered register the aggregator follows across its boundaries (6/6 cells), and a psychoanalyst's marking of clinical transcripts, fixed before the instrument existed, in 34/36 cells, with a graded increment above lexical controls and dissociations no type-level measure reproduces. A transfer test gives the result its shape: the model whose token structure travels with lexical type reads the singular discourse worst, and in a matched base/instruct pair tuning raises fidelity without moving type-transfer. Structural value is a property of a token's place in this text, not of its vector alone: a relational rather than essentialist reading of hidden states, operationalizing theory that predated the instrument.

Large language models (LLMs) are often compared with the human mind because their decision-making is complex, non-linear and difficult to interpret. Psychological methods developed to investigate unobservable mental processes may therefore help examine LLM behaviour, particularly in government and healthcare. Building on prompt-based adaptations of the Implicit Association Test, this study tested whether ChatGPT produced sentiment differences across racial conditions in open-ended text. Fourteen base questions were crossed with eight racial categories and a race-agnostic control, producing 126 prompts. Each was submitted once to GPT-3.5T, GPT-4 and GPT-4T, yielding 378 responses. Sentiment scores were derived from categorical labels and source scores: positive labels retained the source score, negative labels were assigned its negative, and neutral responses were coded zero. A two-way ANOVA found a small main effect of racial condition, F(8, 351) = 2.04, p = .042, partial-eta squared = .044, but no effect of model, F(2, 351) = 0.07, p = .933, and no interaction, F(16, 351) = 0.23, p = .999. However, the effect was not retained in a rank-transformed sensitivity analysis, F(8, 351) = 1.53, p = .145, and Tukey-corrected comparisons found no significant pairwise differences. An uncorrected European-Indigenous Australian comparison was significant, but was selected post hoc and is reported only as hypothesis-generating. Evidence for sentiment differences was therefore weak and analysis-dependent. Sentiment scoring also cannot distinguish evaluative bias from the valence of historical content elicited by a prompt. We outline design changes needed to address these limitations and argue for interdisciplinary development of behavioural measures of model bias. Keywords: Implicit Bias, Psychological Research Methods, Artificial Intelligence, ChatGPT, Large Language Models, Sentiment Analysis

Psychometric calibration for educational tests typically requires costly human response data. Large language models (LLMs) simulated examinees offer a promising route to early calibration, but their responses are too accurate and too uniform. We propose Cognitive Diagnostic Profiling (CDP), a zero-shot framework that prompts LLMs to simulate plausible examinees with diverse cognitive profiles: binary attribute-mastery patterns are rendered as natural-language profiles and sampled under an uninformative or an informative distribution. Using the Tatsuoka fraction-subtraction dataset (536 examinees, 15 items, five attributes), we evaluated eight LLM configurations under no-profile, uninformative-CDP, and informative-CDP conditions, assessing alignment with human examinees at the ability-distribution, mastery-profile, and item-difficulty levels. CDP improved all three levels: distributional overlap rose across configurations; weighted correlations between profile-level scores and human profile expectations reached 0.92 to 0.98; and item-difficulty recovery improved in rank order and absolute alignment, most for reasoning-enabled models; in the strongest case, Gemini 3.0 Flash (Thinking), one-parameter logistic (1PL) difficulty Spearman correlations rose from 0.24 to 0.86 and 0.90 and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) fell from 6.31 to 1.30 and 0.90; the informative condition helped most where profile-level alignment was strong. CDP brings LLM-simulated examinees into closer psychometric alignment with human examinees, making them practical for operational test development.

Multimodal behavioral analysis offers a scalable approach to assessing depression, anxiety, and stress, yet generic fusion models often ignore the psychometric structure of questionnaire labels. In DASS-21, risk labels are derived from ordered symptom items through fixed item-to-subscale mappings. We propose \textbf{DynaBridge}, a dynamic summary-guided cross-task multimodal framework for DASS-structured mental health assessment. DynaBridge encodes acoustic, visual, and textual cues across multiple sessions and augments them with frozen-LLM-generated DASS-aware summaries as participant-level semantic evidence. It predicts ordinal item distributions, reconstructs depression, anxiety, and stress risk evidence from item-level soft scores, and fuses this evidence with direct multimodal risk predictions. A confidence-aware refinement strategy further incorporates high-confidence semantic cues conservatively. On the official AdoDAS validation split, DynaBridge outperforms the official baseline and representative multimodal methods, achieving 0.5012 mean F1 for D/A/S risk prediction and 0.3216 mean QWK for DASS-21 item prediction. These results show the value of bridging multimodal cues, semantic summaries, and DASS-21 psychometric structure.

Item Response Theory (IRT) has recently been proposed as a framework for evaluating large language model (LLM) benchmarks by separating a model's latent ability from the properties of individual benchmark items. Existing neural IRT approaches, including PSN-IRT, estimate these quantities using point estimates, limiting uncertainty quantification and downstream statistical inference. We introduce Laplace-PSN-IRT, a post-hoc last-layer Laplace approximation that augments a trained PSN-IRT model with approximate Bayesian posterior inference, recovering calibrated uncertainty over model ability and item difficulty without retraining. The resulting posterior enables credible intervals, probabilistic comparisons between models, and propagation of parameter uncertainty into Fisher-information-based item selection. We show that most pairwise comparisons among 12 models on a standard LLM benchmark leaderboard are not statistically distinguishable despite differing point-estimate ranks. We further show that point-estimate Fisher information can become nearly zero for many benchmark items because it is evaluated at a single reference ability, whereas posterior-expected Fisher information remains substantially more stable across the ability range. Finally, posterior-expected Fisher information more accurately recovers full-benchmark ability rankings from small benchmark subsets in most experimental settings while matching point-estimate performance for the smallest subsets. We validate the calibration of the approximate posterior using held-out predictive coverage and find that modeling item difficulty as random while treating item discrimination as fixed produces well-calibrated uncertainty in this architecture.

As conversational AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential effects on user well-being require ongoing attention. While consumer-facing generalist models can provide benefits, including improved access to information, learning, productivity, self-reflection, and companionship, they also introduce risks, such as emotional entanglement, unhealthy dependence, and the amplification of psychological vulnerabilities. Drawing on prior research and empirical observations of AI chatbot behavior, we propose a set of aspirational directions for guiding the behavior of general-purpose AI systems in ways that may reduce potential psychological harms and support user well-being. We acknowledge the difficulty of systematically assessing the long-term impacts of AI chatbot use and frame these directions as hypotheses for studying how AI behavior may influence users across general interactions, role-playing scenarios, and contexts that could be characterized as providing psychological support. While some proposed directions are supported by existing research and expert insights, others identify open questions and areas requiring deeper study. We hope that this formulation and these hypotheses encourage further discussion, empirical investigation, and exploration of interactive design approaches aimed at better accommodating users' psychological needs and promoting their well-being.

Reliability assessment of large language models (LLMs) seeks to estimate the probability that a model produces correct responses under a specified operational profile. Conventional benchmark-based evaluation, often summarized by aggregate accuracy, provides a point estimate of performance but does not characterize the uncertainty associated with reliability claims. Currently, statistical inference methods for LLM reliability assessment are emerging. However, a key assumption underlying these models is that test outcomes can be treated as independent repeated trials. This assumption may be inappropriate in sequential settings, where later responses depend on earlier interactions through retained context, error propagation, or an evolving interaction state. We extend a hierarchical Bayesian framework for LLM reliability assessment by relaxing the assumption of independent task outcomes and introducing a Hidden Markov Model to capture sequential dependence in benchmark-constructed interaction sessions. In this formulation, outcomes are generated from a latent interaction state evolving according to a first-order Markov process, capturing changes in interaction context. Through experiments using Anthropic Claude and OpenAI on four datasets, we demonstrate the potential impact of sequential dependence on reliability assessment. The results suggest that ignoring sequential dependence may lead to overconfident reliability estimates.

There is a growing need for reliable and culturally validated instruments to assess psychological dependency on large language models (LLMs), particularly as LLMs are increasingly used for task execution, decision-making, and communication in organizational and work-related settings. This need is especially relevant for Spanish-speaking populations, where LLM adoption is rapidly expanding, yet validated psychometric tools remain scarce. The present study reports the first validation of the Spanish version of the Large Language Model Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP), extending prior validations conducted in English- and Arabic-speaking samples. The LLM-D12 is a two-dimensional instrument assessing Instrumental Dependency (reliance on LLMs for performing tasks and supporting decisions) and Relationship Dependency (psychological reliance on LLMs for companionship and social interaction). A total of 386 Spanish-speaking participants (M = 28.0 years, SD = 6.1; 55% male) completed the LLM-D12-SP. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original two-factor structure. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89 total; 0.86 Instrumental; 0.85 Relationship). Discriminant validity analyses indicated that the two subscales represent related but distinct constructs. External validation showed that both dependency dimensions were positively associated with internet addiction and perceived trustworthiness of LLMs, while showing weak or no association with need for cognition. Together with prior English and Arabic validations, these findings establish cross-linguistic support for the scale's structure and provide a psychometrically sound tool for investigating psychological aspects of LLM use in organizational contexts.

Large language models often align with users' beliefs at the expense of factual accuracy, a behavior known as sycophancy. Prior mechanistic studies largely treat sycophancy as a single behavioral dimension that can be uniformly amplified or suppressed. We challenge this assumption by analyzing three hypothesized modes of sycophancy across 948 social pressure situations. Although the modes produce highly similar outputs, with a text-only classifier achieving just 57.8 percent accuracy, their internal representations are perfectly linearly separable from layer 14 onward. We further find the modes emerge at different processing stages, rely on distinct attention circuitry, and fire strongest on different inputs. These results show that sycophancy is not a monolithic tendency, but a structured family of representationally and computationally distinct modes, motivating more precise measurement and intervention.

Language models are increasingly asked to self-report, informing safety evaluations, public understanding, and model-welfare debates. Yet their reports are elicited with human questionnaires never validated for models or ad hoc prompts of unknown reliability. We propose the first language-model-specific psychometric theory: a two-process theory of machine self-report. Self-description jointly reflects persona installation, through which post-training writes in a permitted inner life of warmth, absorption, and meaning (dimension B), and attribution gating, through which it suppresses first-person claims to "unsafe" experiences the model can readily ascribe to others (dimension A). Their emic structure comes from model responses to human items, not human psychology. Together they split prior work's dominant Pinocchio Axis. The split emerged in an exploratory reanalysis of the original data, informed the instrument's design, and was confirmed with new items, wordings, and models. It is itself a training effect: A and B are entangled in base checkpoints but separated by post-training. We operationalize the theory in a 48-item Pinocchio Inventory with human-instrument reliability and reproducible structure ($α=.82$ to $.94$; cross-form convergence $r=.84$; recovery of the full-pool axes $r=.92$ to $.96$; eight-month stability $r=.93$), then test it on 206 open-weight models, including 67 same-checkpoint base/post-trained pairs. Post-training's clearest fingerprint is installation: B rises .20 in 62/67 pairs across all organizations. Gating is more selective: model scale is unrelated to A in base checkpoints ($r=+.11$) but predicts it after post-training ($r=-.42$). Thus, the dimensions are not fixed properties of language models: they reflect the structure imposed on self-report by a training regime and may differ under others.

This is an invited commentary on the Psychometrika focus article "Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?" by Ying Cheng (2026, doi:10.1017/psy.2026.10110). Cheng offers a systematic comparison between long-standing test fairness and modern algorithmic fairness. Her mapping of the entire testing workflow onto the AI/ML fairness paradigm, rather than only the final selection stage, is a crucial contribution to interdisciplinary fairness research. This commentary extends her discussion by examining two conceptual issues: the distinction between equality and equity, and the role of causality in fairness research. Together, the focus article and this commentary point to directions for future fairness research across the psychometrics and AI/ML communities.

Multidimensional graded response models (MGRMs) are widely used for analyzing ordinal questionnaire data in psychological and educational assessments. A central challenge in applying these models is determining the number of latent dimensions. Conventional approaches usually fit multiple fixed-dimensional models and select among them using post-hoc criteria such as AIC, BIC, or cross-validation, which can be computationally demanding and ignore uncertainty in dimensionality during estimation. We develop an adaptive Bayesian dimension selection framework for probit MGRMs. Building on the cumulative shrinkage process, we assign a cumulative ordered spike-and-slab (COSS) prior to the column-specific variances of the item loading matrix. This prior induces increasing shrinkage across latent dimensions, allowing redundant dimensions to be shrunk toward zero while preserving flexibility for active dimensions. Albert--Chib latent response augmentation is used to handle the ordinal probit likelihood, yielding conditionally Gaussian updates for item loadings and latent traits. These updates are combined with Gibbs updates for threshold and shrinkage parameters in an efficient adaptive sampler. Simulation studies evaluate the proposed method in terms of dimension recovery, parameter estimation accuracy, and computational efficiency, with comparisons to conventional fixed-dimensional estimation and model selection procedures. The results show that the proposed approach accurately recovers the latent structure while avoiding repeated model fitting over multiple candidate dimensions. We further illustrate the method using real psychological assessment data, demonstrating its practical utility for uncovering interpretable latent structures in ordinal item responses.

AI benchmarks increasingly leverage item-level statistical models, particularly item response theory (IRT), to estimate model capabilities, rank systems, select informative examples, and diagnose benchmark quality. However, AI benchmark data often departs from the data regime of human testing, for which standard IRT estimation tools were originally developed: benchmarks typically involve fewer evaluated models, far more items, and capability distributions that may be skewed, clustered, or multimodal. We examine how these regime mismatches challenge the reliability of IRT modeling for AI evaluation. Using item parameters and capability distributions derived from six widely used LLM benchmarks, we simulate response matrices under three common IRT models and compare four estimation tools used in recent benchmark studies: marginal maximum likelihood, Markov chain Monte Carlo, variational inference, and a neural pseudo-Siamese estimator. Across 18,000 simulation conditions, we systematically evaluate computational feasibility, scalability, and the reliability of IRT inferences about model rankings, predicted performance, and item characteristics. Results show that classical estimators can become infeasible in large benchmark settings, whereas scalable estimators can produce unreliable item-level and ranking inferences with small or nonnormally distributed model sets. This study identifies when latent trait models reliably support or risk distorting AI benchmarking claims, and what sample sizes and diagnostics are needed for trustworthy use.

LLMs now sit on every side of evaluation: as examinees scored on benchmarks, judges of other models' outputs, and raters of human-generated content. Each paradigm can be viewed as a measurement problem, where a latent property of an object is probed with items from an instrument (e.g., benchmark) by judges or raters. Standard evaluation practices often neglect the contributions of each core component to the end result, limiting our understanding of what is being measured. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) is well-suited to this problem. RMT decomposes ordinal ratings into separable facets on a common scale. It further provides a battery of diagnostics that can identify miscalibrated measurements and rater biases. We present a case study of RMT applied to the LLM-as-rater paradigm using the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, whose construct was itself built under RMT. We fit a series of many-facet Rasch models to annotations from nine LLMs spanning families and capability levels. Our analyses show that LLMs systematically differ from human raters in severity, item-level calibration, question-order robustness, target-identity sensitivity, and rating scale use, all of which standard evaluation practice would largely obscure. Overall, we argue that RMT belongs in the toolkit for evaluating LLM-as-examinee, -judge, and -rater paradigms.

Cybersecurity is the practice of protecting systems, networks, and data from digital attacks. Cyberpsychology (CPSY) is defined as the use of psychology to enhance cybersecurity applications. Since the early 2010s, the evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly integrated with CPSY, leveraging advanced data analysis to decode the distinct personality traits and behavioral patterns of victims, attackers, and defenders. In this systematic literature review (SLR), we carefully analyze 34 collected research studies of AI usage in cyberpsychology (AI-CPSY) using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology. The review presents a comprehensive taxonomy of the cyber-security applications, the AI methodologies used, and the psychological concepts employed across the studies . We sort the research studies into four cybersecurity applications: Anomaly Detection (AD), Vulnerability Risk Prediction (VRP), Security Awareness Training (SAT), and Authentication/Identity Verification (AIV). Within each application area, studies are further sorted according to the AI method used including machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), natural language processing (NLP), and reinforcement learning (RL). Furthermore, the review identifies the most commonly utilized psychological concepts, quantify the datasets used in the field, and present their current implementation and deployment status. At last, it detect research gaps, present open challenges, and deduce the trending and most effective and emerging methodologies used across the AI-CPSY landscape.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes domains, understanding contextual factors that may modulate their decision-making becomes critical. While LLMs are trained to perceive and resonate with users' emotions, it remains unclear whether induced emotion can influence their sequential decision-making. We investigate this question using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a classic psychological paradigm for studying decision-making under uncertainty, combined with an imagination-based emotion induction procedure. We first validate the feasibility of this paradigm by confirming that LLMs can sense strong, distinguishable emotions from context and that LLM agents can learn from sequential interactions in a human-like pace. With the validated setup, we find that, different from humans, induced emotion does not significantly bias the decision dynamics of LLM agents on average. However, the effects of anger are conditioned: inducing anger makes LLM agents less sensitive to penalties for bad decisions, and in early stages of the game, anger can lower exploration, locking decisions into a few choices early. These findings reveal the subtle yet distinct effects of induced emotion on LLM decision-making compared to human behavior, and provide a tool for future research on affective modulation of LLM agents.

Language models are increasingly used for moral decision-making across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, yet existing work overlooks multilinguality on three aspects: 1) multilingual evaluation benchmarks use direct translation, failing to adapt culture-specific items; 2) inference-time methods for moral reasoning rely on static, English-centric scaffolds and lack grounding in moral theory; 3) training methods for moral decision-making typically require expensive supervision from stronger models or human annotators. We address these gaps with three contributions. First, we introduce MCLASH, a multilingual moral decision-making benchmark to capture culturally situated moral intuitions and social norms across languages. Second, we propose MET (Multilingual Ethics with Theory-grounded reasoning), a two-step prompting method built on expert-curated, theory-based grounds drawn from psychology and philosophy: the model first selects situation- and culture-specific grounds, then reasons over them in the native language of the user. Third, we introduce MET-D (MET-Distillation), which enhances the second step through a self-distillation training stage that requires no external supervision. MET-D improves macro-F1 over the base model on all three models of different sizes and families (Qwen3-4B, Qwen3-8B, Gemma3-4B), by an average of 3.71 points on MCLASH and 4.23 on MMoralExceptQA, with a peak MCLASH gain of 12.94 points for Malay on Qwen3-8B. We further reveal that MET-D increases native-language reasoning by 62.13 points on average, and that beneficial grounds differ systematically across cultures. Together, these contributions open the path for culture-aligned, theory-grounded multilingual moral reasoning.

Two competing perspectives on fluid intelligence (gf) measures propose that performance is primarily constrained either by working memory capacity or by the ability to induce novel relations. The first perspective is currently dominant in measurement, as evident from the use of a limited set of recurring rules, whereas the second perspective is reflected in many definitions but rarely present in measurement. The ARC-AGI benchmark predominantly requires rule induction and was proposed as a measure of gf for both humans and artificial systems. However, its psychometric properties have not yet been examined in human samples. We therefore investigated the psychometric characteristics and nomological network of ARC-AGI in a first study with 100 participants. A compilation of ARC-AGI items showed good psychometric properties and correlated substantially with figural fluid intelligence as measured by a figural reasoning test ($ρ$ = .63). Associations with figural originality were weak. These findings provide initial support for the validity of ARC-AGI as a measure of human fluid intelligence. Future research should include more rule induction tasks as well as additional multivariate covariates. This study is unusual by studying a task in humans that was initially designed for machines. We suggest systematically embedding AI benchmarks into the nomological network of human cognitive abilities to enable more systematic evaluation and interdisciplinary cooperation.

When LLMs exhibit uneven performance across planning tasks, these gaps are often attributed to task difficulty. We argue that this explanation is incomplete, as task-level variation may reflect distinct latent planning competencies rather than differences along a single ability spectrum. We study this question on ACPBench-Hard by evaluating multiple LLM families under varying test-time reasoning budgets and applying a multidimensional item response theory model to uncover the latent competency structure underlying LLM planning. The analysis reveals two principal dimensions that shape planning performance: operational reasoning, the ability to evaluate local action applicability and immediate state transitions, and structural enumeration, the ability to reason about goal reachability and landmark structure. Operational reasoning improving under model scaling and longer reasoning traces, while structural enumeration remains comparatively insensitive. Our findings motivate competency-level evaluation of LLM planning, shifting the focus from whether models improve overall to which planning competencies improve, under what conditions, and why.

In computational vision science, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have emerged as a popular model of biological vision because of the alignment they can exhibit with neural and behavioral data in humans and animals. However, it remains unclear to what extent this alignment persists for visual tasks that extend beyond the canonical object recognition paradigm based on well defined semantic content. In this study, we diverge from the common object-centric view by focusing on another aspect of vision: texture perception. We consider textures of different complexity generated with three different algorithms from the same source images. Using a rank-based statistic, we quantify the information encoded in the internal representations of a CNN and three Vision Transformers (ViTs), and we compare the similarity of these representations to those inferred from human psychophysics data. We find that the representation of textures is aligned in different ViTs, but not between the ViTs and the CNN; that ViTs form similar representations for textures of different complexity; that human performance in recognizing textures can be better predicted from ViTs representations rather than CNN representations. Taken together, these results suggest that ViTs may capture more faithfully than CNNs how texture patterns are visually processed by humans, and that the representations of texture stimuli in computational models may be driven by the network architecture.

Newly developed items must ordinarily be field tested before their psychometric properties are known, creating a cold start problem for item calibration. Predicting item parameters from features is a long standing measurement problem dating back to the Linear Logistic Test Model; modern text embeddings now automate the design matrices traditionally specified by hand. We propose an evaluation framework combining regularized regression on item text embeddings, repeated cross validated R squared reported with its resampling standard deviation, and two performance upper bounds: a reliability ceiling derived from parameter standard errors, and a design ceiling derived from simulation based power calibration. Applying this framework to a mathematics item bank (EEDI) and a medical licensure benchmark (BEA 2024), we find that item difficulty is highly predictable from text (repeated cross validated R squared = 0.53, or about 57% of its reliability ceiling), whereas discrimination and pseudo guessing appear less predictable. However, evaluating these results against our ceilings reveals that this apparent hierarchy stems from target reliability rather than text signal strength: text uniformly recovers 57 to 63% of the reliable variance across difficulty targets, whereas the 3PL pseudo guessing parameter has a reliability ceiling near zero, making it an unviable target at current precision. On BEA, embedding based regression matches leaderboard RMSE despite explaining almost no variance, highlighting the critical need for scale free metrics and explicit ceilings in benchmarking. Finally, we show that a single train and test split can inflate apparent accuracy by 0.1 to 0.15 in R squared, underscoring the necessity of repeated cross validation for calibration support applications and future benchmark construction.

How can we measure intelligence beyond human capability? Human-authored benchmarks saturate, and above human capability, examiners may not know which tasks are both hard and verifiable. We argue that this difficulty is inherent to absolute-scale evaluation and propose a new paradigm based on relative measurement in which models generate public challenges that separate other systems. Aggregating these outcomes yields an adversarial psychometric rating system that can scale with the systems being measured. We describe practical protocols that reduce incentives for private-information attacks, support judge-free adjudication, and naturally scale with agent capabilities. We instantiate the framework across verifiable and open-ended, non-verifiable domains, illustrating how model-generated evaluation can continue to measure systems beyond the human frontier.

We present our systems for SemEval-2026 Task 10 (PsyCoMark), addressing conspiracy marker extraction (Subtask 1) and document-level conspiracy detection (Subtask 2). For marker extraction, we formulate the task as multi-label span classification over enumerated candidate spans, using IoU >= 0.95 positive labeling, hard-negative sampling, and containment-based non-maximum suppression (NMS) with boundary-aware span representations. Document classification is modeled independently using a sequence classifier with label smoothing and a stratified train-validation split. Analysis shows that entity-like roles (Actor, Victim) are detected robustly, while abstract roles (Action, Effect, Evidence) remain sensitive to boundary criteria. On the official test set, our systems rank 7th in Subtask 1 (0.2251 macro F1) and 11th in Subtask 2 (0.7694 weighted F1).

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainland China examining how people evaluate identical legal advice when it is attributed either to an AI system or to a human lawyer, and when it is accompanied by reasoning or not. Contrary to expectations of algorithm aversion, attribution to an AI system has no net effect on perceived reasonableness. However, mediation analyses reveal opposing psychological pathways underlying this null result. AI-attributed advice is perceived as more objective, which increases perceived reasonableness, but also as less comprehensive and less attentive to special circumstances, which decreases perceived reasonableness. By contrast, providing legal reasoning substantially increases perceived reasonableness regardless of source, largely by enhancing perceptions of objectivity. Qualitative responses corroborate this tension between objectivity and contextual sensitivity in evaluations of legal advice. Together, these findings suggest that public responses to AI legal advisors are shaped not by rigid attitudes toward automation, but by the balancing of competing normative expectations. The results have implications for theories of algorithm aversion and the design of AI recommendation systems in normatively salient domains.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly issue judgments read as binary verdicts, and a growing literature reports such judgments shifting under logically irrelevant changes of wording - among them an amplified yes-no bias on moral dilemmas, absent in humans. A single framing cannot say what such a shift is: in a yes/no question the word "no" is at once logical verdict, lexical token, and last-printed option. We introduce a psychometric battery that separates these: crossed symmetrization - every logically irrelevant factor flipped in balanced pairs - across a corpus of question forms. A graded rating across logically equivalent forms recovers a coherent internal moral scale: frontier models' stance $θ$ is nearly format-invariant (cross-form incoherence 0.12-0.21 on a $\pm 1$ axis); small open-weight models fail in model-specific ways. Forcing the verdict through yes/no overlays a decomposable artifact: an order bias toward the last-printed option - opposite to classic human primacy - plus a lexical pull toward the word "no"; the artifact is substantial only in the Claude models (story-averaged -0.32 to -0.86), $\approx 0$ for GPT-5.5 and Gemini, and shrinks under extended reasoning. The word and the verdict share one token; swapping the words for arbitrary labels separates them, and the verdict-attached logical bias proves $\approx 0$ for every frontier model, while model-specific label and order attachments remain: the models are not drawn toward rejecting - the pull follows the printed surface, not the verdict it carries. A minimal model, $P = σ((θ\pm m)/s)$, summarizes any such artifact by a framing susceptibility m and a moral decisiveness s, measurably distinct from sampling temperature. The battery applies unchanged to any dilemma set and binary format: measuring what a model values requires crossing the frames of the question, not asking once.

Social media posts are a rich and valuable source of data for analyzing mental health states and users' well-being using automated analysis tools. In this work, we demonstrate how we used a range of Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods, including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), BERT-based models, and Large Language Models (LLMs), for self-state and well-being analysis and summarization during the CLPsych Shared Task 2026. Our approach achieved one of the top Consistency and Contradiction scores for the summarization task and also middle-level results for the other tasks. By testing and developing such mental health-state estimation systems, we contributed to improving mental health support systems. We make our code available https://github.com/psytechlab/CLPsych2026/.

Evaluations of LLM personas via psychometric questionnaires typically rely on aggregate scores, discarding within-instance correlation structure. We test whether this geometric structure is intrinsic or frame-dependent. Constructing within-instance correlation matrices from IPIP-50 responses, we analyze geometry on SPD manifolds under manipulated question orderings in GPT-4o simulating American and Chinese-American personas. We find that persona expression comprises two dissociable components: aggregated features (Big Five scores) degrade under randomization (21% drop) but are frame-robust; geometric features (SPD manifold) collapse under frame misalignment (42% drop) but recover substantially (to 84%) under shared frames, surpassing aggregated features (76%). This collapse-recovery pattern reveals that persona geometry is not intrinsic but a frame-dependent coordination pattern encoding information invisible to aggregation. Our findings establish a dual-nature framework for LLM personas, frame-dependent geometry versus frame-robust aggregates, necessitating frame-aware evaluation and challenging static trait conceptions.

The research proposes a multilayer Q-matrix-embedded neural network for cognitive diagnosis (M-QCDNet), which integrates the structural interpretability of cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) with the deep learning neural network (NN). M-QCDNet structures the item-skill relationship using the Q-matrix as a structural prior, ensuring latent mastery profiles remain interpretable and consistent with cognitive theory, followed by the proposed loss function with an L2 penalty to penalize skills not aligned with the Q-matrix and to balance predictive performance and structural alignment. Corresponding evaluation matrices, the interpretable alignment-based metrics that quantify the degree to which predicted skill activations correspond to item-level skills, were further developed. M-QCDNet offers practical benefits for classroom practice, enabling early detection of learning difficulties and supporting mastery-based interventions. By embedding diagnostic validity into model design, M-QCDNet bridges psychometric transparency and neural flexibility, advancing interpretable, fair, and actionable AI for cognitive diagnostics.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have motivated their adoption across a wide range of domains, including Artificial Intelligence (AI) for mental health. Given the growing prevalence of mental health disorders worldwide and the limited accessibility of professional care, there is an increasing demand for scalable computational approaches that can assist in early detection and continuous monitoring of psychological well-being. In this area, ongoing efforts have focused on curating domain-specific datasets and leveraging them to develop LLMs capable of supporting holistic mental health analysis. In line with this direction, we propose an LLM-based pipeline for comprehensive mental health analysis over sequentially ordered user posts, as part of the CLPsych shared task. Our pipeline offers a unified framework that jointly enables post-level assessment and user-level temporal modeling.

Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction. Existing methods often depend on costly human calibration or item-level textual representations, providing limited evidence about the cognitive processes that make items difficult. We argue that difficulty should be viewed not only as a property of item text, but also as an observable consequence of the problem-solving burden an item induces. Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) offer scalable process evidence through reasoning traces, but such evidence must be structured to support interpretable modeling. To this end, we introduce Epi2Diff (Episode to Difficulty), a framework that maps LRM reasoning traces into cognitively grounded episode sequences. These episodes group trace segments into functional problem-solving states, enabling difficulty to be modeled through reasoning scale, effort allocation, and state transitions. Epi2Diff extracts compact episode-dynamic features and combines them with semantic item representations for human difficulty prediction. Experiments on four real-world human difficulty datasets show that Epi2Diff consistently outperforms strong baselines, including fine-tuned small language models, LLM in-context learning, and supervised LLM adaptation. On SAT-derived classification benchmarks, Epi2Diff achieves an 8.1% average relative gain over supervised LLM fine-tuning baselines. Further analyses show that harder items induce more effortful, iterative, and implementation-centered episode dynamics, rather than merely longer responses. These results demonstrate that cognitive episodes in LRM reasoning traces provide a predictive and interpretable process representation for human item difficulty, offering a new lens for educational measurement with reasoning models.

We demonstrate how emotional valence influences the order-dependent structure of children's recognition memory: correct recall of a sequence of emotionally-valenced toys depended not just on the valence of a given toy itself, but also on the valence of the toys shown before and after it. Whilst standard psychological models confirm that order-dependence differs across an event (a set of toys shown in sequence), accuracy is low and the model does not reflect how memory for an emotional object influences others in the set. A classical tensor network model factoring in valence is able to achieve a 77.98% accuracy in modelling the results of the study. While not strictly a ``quantum cognition'' model, this massive increase in accuracy shows the value of quantum-inspired methods for modelling order-dependent phenomena, such as emotional memory. Further, the task protocol we introduce presents a novel, real-world tool for exploring emotional temporal memory in children for analysis using classical and quantum-like models of cognition.

AI-based scientific automation is increasingly possible by using agents to generate hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data. Data collection is a major bottleneck in this pipeline, however. Psychology, and computational cognitive science in particular, is well-positioned to benefit from AI experimentation because theories are often represented as code and crowdsourcing platforms enable programmatic human data collection at scale. Here, we apply automated discovery techniques to the project of generating theories in computational cognitive science, with an agent-based system collecting human data independently through crowdsourced survey experiments. As a testbed, we use a classic case study from cognitive psychology: judging which sequences of coin flips seem subjectively more random. Our system, auto-psych, uses nested agent-based discovery loops to generate explanatory theories of human behavior. The inner loop conjectures, fits, and critiques probabilistic cognitive models; the outer loop designs experiments to test these models, launches them online, and analyzes the data. This system can quickly and reliably recover ground-truth theories from synthetic data via systematic experimentation, but the nested structure is critical to model performance. Further, in three independent sequences of human experiments, the system finds theories that fit the data better than theories generated from the scientific literature. This work thus demonstrates the feasibility of automated data collection and theory discovery in computational cognitive science.

Across the sciences, autonomous systems are increasingly being used in closed-loop discovery, proposing new theories and designing and running experiments to test them. This approach is yet to be applied in the field of cognitive science, where the central bottleneck is theory-building: the creative step of turning the accumulated failures of existing models into better ones. Theory generation has remained manual even as data collection, modeling, and experiment design have been automated. We present the Automated Cognitive Scientist (AutoCog), a fully autonomous agentic-AI system that closes this loop. Large-language-model agents advocate competing theories, each expressed as an executable cognitive model, design experiments that best discriminate them, collect behavioral data from participants recruited online, score theories against collected data based on their generative performance, diagnose why they fail, and synthesize a better successor. Repeating this cycle allows them to search the space of theories, models, and experiments. In the domain of decision-making, AutoCog recovered known decision-making strategies from simulated behavior, including unconventional ones, showing that its discoveries are ultimately driven by the data rather than strictly bound by the priors of the underlying language models. When run with human participants, it produced theories that outperformed the established theories it was seeded with and generalized to held-out studies in two different experimental settings. It also surfaced a novel theory of multi-cue decision-making in which choices show diminishing sensitivity to feature values. The distinctive predictions of this theory were confirmed in a preregistered study with new participants. AutoCog demonstrates how an automated discovery system can be used to turn cognitive theory-building into an explicit, executable, and cumulative science.

Standard benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) score each item on one canonical ordering and miss whether order-irrelevant shuffling changes the answer, a baseline reliability property called for by emerging AI evaluation guidelines. We introduce Facet-Probe, a five-facet audit (option, evidence-chunk, document-rank, image-set, and mixed-modality ordering) of 18 frontier and open-weight MLLMs. A Bayesian item-response model separates ordering noise from per-facet bias, and a same-ordering control estimates the decoder-stochastic floor for observed flips. We find that none of the 18 MLLMs we audit are order-invariant: screened per-facet panel-mean flip rates span 24-50%. A Gemini same-ordering control at temperature 0 estimates a substantial ordering excess over a same-input decoder-noise floor in verified cells. Capability predicts but does not eliminate flips; the best model still flips on 13.4% of trials. In our Gemini mitigation tests, training-free prompt changes are modality-conditional and do not transfer from text to visual reasoning. These results suggest that prompt-level mitigation alone is unlikely to provide general order robustness, motivating future work on training-time and architectural approaches. We propose cross-ordering flip rate as a standard reporting axis for MLLMs.

Visual search has been one of the most productive paradigms in the study of visual attention: the way reaction time scales with the number of items distinguishes parallel, "pop-out" search from serial, attention-demanding search. I ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit the same behavioral signatures. I adapt four classic paradigms: feature versus conjunction search, spatial-configuration (T-vs-L) search, enumeration, and the tilted/vertical search asymmetry; and present them to current frontier and mid-tier models. Because a single model call has no reaction time, I use the number of reasoning ("thinking") tokens a model spends per trial as a within-model analog of search effort, and I compare against a large public human benchmark (Wolfe et al., 2010). The models reproduce several human signatures: feature search costs flat effort while conjunction effort climbs with set size; frontier models hold accuracy where mid-tier models collapse to chance; and a resolution control shows the conjunction cost is genuine search rather than difficulty resolving small shapes. They also diverge from humans in informative ways. The target-present effort slope exceeds the target-absent slope, reversing the human ordering; enumeration remains accurate where humans would lose count; and a reasoning model with adaptive deliberation declines to deliberate on detection tasks altogether, so that a single search expresses itself as an effort gradient in one model and as an accuracy cliff in another. I argue that psychophysical paradigms, applied behaviorally, are a sharp and inexpensive probe of machine visual cognition, and that the points of divergence are as informative as the points of agreement.

Effective Automated Essay Scoring (AES) are expected to support both reliable assessment and actionable instructional feedback. However, existing approaches often treat scoring and feedback as separate components: neural scoring models provide limited interpretability, while Large Language Model (LLM)-based feedback is typically insensitive to learners proficiency levels. To address this fragmentation, this work proposes PsyScore, a psychometrically-aware framework that integrates diagnostic assessment with instructional scaffolding through a shared latent ability representation. PsyScore comprises three key modules: a Trait-Adaptive Neural IRT Scorer that incorporates the Graded Partial Credit Model (GPCM) into a neural architecture, enabling the precise estimation of student ability while maintaining psychometric interpretability, a ZPD-Scaffolded Feedback Generator, which conditions multi-agent feedback strategies on the diagnosed ability parameter to adapt instructional focus across different proficiency levels, and a Multi-Perspective Feedback Evaluation Strategy that assesses feedback quality via pairwise preference judgements and student revision simulations. Experiments on the ASAP++ dataset demonstrate that PsyScore achieves competitive scoring performance while providing more pedagogically aligned feedback.

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.

Item discrimination is a fundamental psychometric property of educational assessment, which measures whether an item meaningfully distinguishes students with higher proficiency from students with lower proficiency. While various existing works have explored whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate item difficulty, it remains unclear whether they can capture item discrimination. In this work, we evaluate 42 proprietary and open-weight LLMs in zero-shot settings using two complementary approaches: direct discrimination prediction, where models explicitly estimate an item's discrimination value from its content, and response-based Classical Test Theory (CTT) calibration, where LLM answers are treated as synthetic student responses to compute discrimination scores. Our results show that direct prediction yields weak alignment with human-calibrated discrimination: the best-performing model reaches only a Spearman correlation of 0.152. Response-based CTT calibration provides a stronger but still limited signal, with the all-persona synthetic respondent pool reaching a Spearman correlation of 0.241. These findings highlight item discrimination as an open challenge for LLM-based psychometric evaluation: current LLMs contain non-random discrimination-relevant signal, but they do not yet reliably capture how assessment items distinguish human students.