Psychology

Multilingual benchmarks are central to evaluating large language models (LLMs) across languages, but they suffer from three issues: exhaustive evaluation scales linearly with the number of languages, automatic translation introduces errors that are easily missed at scale, and some items conflate general and culture-specific knowledge. We address all three with a unified statistical framework, Multilingual-IRT, which extends Item Response Theory with per-language difficulty deviations, split discriminability separating content from language effects, and per-language ability residuals. Fitting Multilingual-IRT on 25 LLMs across 29 languages of MMLU-Pro-X, we show that its fitted parameters support three practical applications: predicting unobserved (item, LLM, language) instances with 11-16% lower binary cross-entropy than the strongest accuracy-based baseline, surfacing candidate translation errors distributed across all 28 non-English languages, whereas accuracy-based baselines concentrate detections in a few languages, and recovering culture-specific items that accuracy-based baselines miss.

LLM-as-a-judge systems are now routinely used for open-ended model evaluation, where human preference annotation is costly, slow, and difficult to reproduce. Yet these judges are often reported as scalar accuracy, win-rate, or agreement devices. We argue that a judge should instead be reported as a measurement instrument. We introduce a Judge Datasheet protocol that measures dark current under true-vacuum inputs, stable cross-sensitivity to same-quality surface variation, positional false preference, target sensitivity on a controlled quality ladder, and the criterion or operating point induced by tie instructions. The direction-stability decomposition reveals that apparent Delta0 preference can be stable surface response or disguised position bias. In a three-judge open-weight case study, Llama-3.1-8B shows high dark current and presentation-conflicted Delta0 behavior, Qwen2.5-14B is vacuum-clean and target-sensitive but mixes stable and positional over-discrimination, and Qwen2.5-32B is vacuum-clean with low stable cross-sensitivity and low positional false preference. A strict tie criterion eliminates Qwen32B Delta0 false preference but absorbs marginal Delta1 target signals into ties while preserving Delta5 sensitivity. The results show that prompting moves the criterion, not the resolution. We do not claim that the downstream mechanism hypothesis that motivated this work is confirmed; the contribution is a metrological protocol for measuring the measuring device before downstream claims are made.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated for bias using adaptations of human psychological paradigms, yet methodological limitations-particularly the conflation of refusal behavior with task performance-have hindered clear interpretation. Here, we adapt the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to a controlled, forced-choice framework and introduce a two-stage modeling approach that separates response compliance from task-consistent classification. Across three contemporary LLMs (Claude Sonnet-4, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-5), we evaluate associative interference, defined as reduced task-consistency in incongruent relative to congruent conditions. While compliance with the structured response format was uniformly high, interference effects varied substantially across models and domains. Claude Sonnet-4 exhibited strong interference in the Gender--Career domain (DeltaP = 0.086, 95% CrI [0.026, 0.173]) and smaller but credible effects in Gender--Science. Gemini 2.5 Pro showed attenuated interference, and GPT-5 exhibited minimal or no detectable interference across domains. These findings demonstrate that IAT-style associative asymmetries are not a universal property of LLMs, but instead depend on model-specific characteristics. By isolating interference from compliance and modeling item-level variability, this study provides a principled framework for evaluating structured response patterns in LLMs. The results highlight the importance of model-specific assessment and suggest that associative interference can be substantially mitigated in modern systems.

Anticipating LLM behavioral tendencies from low-cost psychometric probes is critical for safe deployment, but only if self-reports (SR) reliably predict behavior. Recent work documented substantial SR-behavior dissociation in LLMs, but relied on broad personality traits (Big 5) that predict specific behaviors weakly, even in humans. Furthermore, the isolation of conversational sessions combined with weak context matching left open whether LLMs truly lack coherence or whether the conditions needed to detect such coherence were not met. We contrast Big 5 with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which measures intention targeted to a specific behavior and predicts human behavior substantially better than broad traits. We run experiments across four behavioral tasks and 11 frontier LLMs, while also varying session context and identity induction. We find that SR-behavior coherence exists but is selective. 1) Within a shared conversation, the Theory of Planned Behavior reaches human-level coherence; Big 5 does not. 2) Across separate conversations, coherence survives only for behaviors anchored outside the immediate prompt, such as implicit bias shaped by training, and collapses when behavior is strongly primed by context, as with sycophancy. 3) Persona prompting makes self-reports more consistent across conversations, but does not bring behavior into alignment. These findings suggest that coarse personality frameworks, such as Big 5 may not be the best tools for testing deployment behavior. More task- and behavior-specific instruments are needed, and even these must be evaluated across tasks and contexts.

Predicting psychological traits from asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) is a challenging problem in AI-assisted interview assessment because labeled datasets are limited while each response contains high-dimensional visual, acoustic, and verbal signals. This paper presents our solution for the ACM Multimedia AVI Challenge 2026, which evaluates two tasks: Track1 predicts self-reported HEXACO personality traits from personality-related interview responses, and Track2 classifies cognitive ability levels from structured AVI responses. We treat the problem as a small-sample representation learning task. Instead of fine-tuning large pretrained models, we use frozen multimodal encoders, including CLIP for visual features, Whisper for acoustic features and transcripts, and RoBERTa, E5, and DeBERTaV3 for textual representations, followed by low-capacity downstream models. For Track1, our trait-specific regression and late-fusion system achieves an average validation MSE of 0.2696, improving over the official baseline of 0.3334. Ablation results show a three-step improvement from a global model (0.3189), to per-trait modeling (0.2871), to per-trait late fusion (0.2696), corresponding to a 19.1% relative MSE reduction over the official baseline. For Track2, a compact subject-attribute baseline reaches 0.5781 accuracy, while our multimodal ensemble reaches 0.5313, both above the official baseline of 0.4062. We interpret this result as evidence of possible subject-attribute shortcuts in the validation split rather than robust cognitive inference from AVI content. Overall, our findings suggest that AVI-based psychological assessment benefits from trait-specific multimodal modeling, but cognitive ability prediction requires careful control of dataset shortcuts.

Simulating patients with large language models (LLMs) is a promising tool for mental health training, but existing approaches fail to capture a key clinical reality: self-stigma. Patients experiencing self-stigma, the internalization of negative stereotypes, often exhibit context-sensitive resistance, such as avoidance, denial, or self-blame, which current models render as static or uniformly compliant behavior. To address this, we introduce a novel simulation framework grounded in the psychological 3A1H model of self-stigmatization. Our core innovation is the creation of a \textbf{Stigmatized Self-Reflection} (\textbf{SSR}) dataset, where we augment mental health dialogues with internal monologues that reflect stigma-aware reasoning. By fine-tuning LLMs with this data using a chain-of-thought approach, we train patient agents to dynamically adjust their level and expression of stigma based on conversational triggers. Evaluations demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms specialized baselines, generating more authentic and situationally appropriate patient responses. This work provides a crucial step towards realistic stigma simulation for clinical training and empathetic dialogue systems.

Large language models are increasingly used to answer culturally grounded questions across languages, yet it remains unclear whether local cultural knowledge is better accessed through English or the local language. Existing evaluations face two key limitations: many rely on parallel template-based questions that may not reflect how cultural knowledge naturally appears, and raw accuracy conflates general language proficiency with language-conditioned knowledge access. We address these issues with a controlled framework built on real-world cultural questions collected from regional benchmarks and local sources. By crossing question type (culture-agnostic vs. culture-specific) with query language (English vs. local language), and estimating ability with a shared 1PL item response theory model, we separate proficiency from localized knowledge access. Across 13 locales and roughly 80 models, we find a consistent English advantage on culture-agnostic questions, indicating stronger English proficiency. However, after accounting for this proficiency gap, local languages show a positive knowledge-access advantage in nearly all locale-model settings. This advantage is often masked in raw accuracy but becomes more visible for frontier, regionally aligned, or language-adapted models. Our results suggest that weaker local-language performance does not necessarily imply weaker cultural knowledge; rather, local cultural knowledge may be more accessible through the local language but hidden by limited language proficiency.

Human perception of surface slant from texture exhibits systematic, graded biases that emerge reliably in psychophysical experiments. Prior work showed that unsupervised CNNs reproduce several human-like biases, while supervised CNNs do not. Do Vision-Language Models (VLMs) exhibit similar competences? Across multiple VLM families and model scales, zero-shot and in-context prompting both produce distinctive failures: slant is predicted at only a small set of anchors (e.g., 0\degree, $\pm$25\degree, $\pm$45\degree) with little dependence on stimulus field of view, optical slant, or surface curvature. Supervised fine-tuning partially remediates the failure, but residual anchoring persists. While success in high-level vision-language benchmarks might not require sensitivity to low-level geometric cues, we interpret anchoring as a failure at the representation-to-output language interface: not necessarily an absence of geometric encoding, but a failure to express it in a graded form.

When prompting language models for psychometric assessment, researchers assume that the responses reflect the injected persona and the meaning of the survey item. We test this premise using a diagnostic design that crosses five semantically distinct baseline personas with five semantically equivalent variants of each of four prompt components (persona wording, task instruction, item wording, option symbol). Measuring the 1-Wasserstein distance between the resulting response distributions and partitioning the variation among the five components allows for the separation of target effects from prompt artifacts. We apply the framework to 13 open-weight small language models (0.6B to 14B) on the Big Five Inventory and the Short Dark Triad. We find that in most models, the task instruction and option symbol displace response distributions further than paraphrasing the persona description or the item itself. For a substantial share of items, the artifact share of explained variation exceeds 50%; non-semantic changes of the prompt account for more response variation than the baseline personas. Our framework lets researchers quantify these prompt artifacts before interpreting psychometric output.

Multi-turn jailbreak attacks on large language models (LLMs) reveal a mismatch in current guardrails: they operate on individual turns, while attacks unfold as trajectories across conversations. We propose a shift from content to dynamics, modeling conversations as paths in representation space and asking whether adversarial intent is encoded early in their geometry. We introduce PsychoPass, a framework that extracts geometric features from conversation trajectories in embedding space to predict a potential attack before harmful content is produced. These features achieve near-perfect performance in naïve classifiers, which is largely explained by the inclusion of number of turns as a feature. After removing this confound, a smaller but consistent geometric signal remains, with classification performance that does not depend meaningfully on encoder choice. Crucially, this signal appears early in the conversation: attack outcomes remain above chance from short prefixes alone, more reliably than baseline guardrails. A supporting theoretical analysis explains these findings via a decomposition of length and shape, a detection bound based on prefix length, and encoder invariance. Together, these results show that adversarial conversations leave an early, representation-robust geometric fingerprint suitable for online monitoring.

Real-time emotion recognition from facial expressions is a challenging task, particularly in video-based scenarios where multiple emotional states may occur over time. The difficulty increases further due to the fact that each emotional state is associated with facial expressions that vary significantly across individuals. The change of facial expressions portraying emotional state is not discrete, but rather continuous, which is very challenging to represent through computational aids. A system with the ability to detect variations in facial expressions can have a significant impact on determining the emotional state of an individual. Such a system can be very beneficial for psychologists during counseling by providing additional insights into the emotional state of a subject. In this paper, a deep learning-based system is presented to detect emotional changes in real-time video of a person by modeling the change in facial expressions. The current study is conducted on a standard dataset for training of the deep learning system and the system has provided very satisfactory outcomes in this respect.

Self-report questionnaires remain the prevailing tool for probing the psychological states of persona-conditioned agents (PC-Agents). However, classical instruments inherit two well-known threats: contamination from training corpora and directional bias driven by social-desirability or contextual framing. To overcome these methodological bottlenecks, we ask whether projective paradigms can be adapted into a robust psychometric tool. We introduce \textbf{GenPT} (Generative Projective Testing), which reformulates TAT, Rorschach, and SCT with newly generated stimuli and organizes assessment as a three-stage pipeline to derive standardized psychological indicators and target states. Evaluating PC-Agents induced via CharacterRAG and AnnaAgent profiles, we benchmark GenPT's reliability and validity against classical questionnaires. The results indicate that questionnaires exhibit systematic directional shifts under social-desirability framing, most strongly on suicide ideation. In contrast, GenPT's collected behavioral patterns stay near the symmetric baseline. Furthermore, under a longitudinal counselling context, GenPT-based depression assessment shifts by roughly an order of magnitude more than the questionnaire counterpart when Qwen3 serves as the backbone. Overall, GenPT complements self-report methods in scenarios where contamination resistance, bias asymmetry, and context sensitivity matter. Code and stimuli can be found at https://github.com/sci-m-wang/GenPT.

Scaling laws provide a fundamental framework for understanding the performance of Language Models (LMs), yet deriving them requires prohibitively expensive evaluations across thousands of checkpoints or millions of inference samples. To address this, we introduce Item Response Scaling Laws (IRSL), a unified framework that integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) within the scaling law framework. Unlike traditional approaches that treat each model-benchmark pair in isolation, IRSL disentangles latent model ability from question characteristics, factorizing the scaling law estimation for $M$ models and $N$ questions to significantly reduce parameter complexity from $O(M \times N)$ to $O(M + N)$. We instantiate IRSL with Beta-IRT, which leverages the empirical probability responses of LMs -- such as token probabilities in pre-training and pass rates in test-time sampling -- to capture richer signals than binary responses. We validate our approach across two prevalent scaling paradigms: (1) pre-training downstream scaling, using 6,612 LM checkpoints and 37,682 questions from 10 benchmarks; and (2) test-time scaling, using 12 LMs and 120 questions from 4 benchmarks with up to 2,500 samples per question. Given a one-time calibration on existing model responses, IRSL yields more reliable scaling estimates using only 50 questions per benchmark (a 99.9% reduction), achieving comparable or superior decision accuracy to traditional approaches. Furthermore, we show that the estimated latent model abilities are generalizable, enabling accurate performance forecasting across benchmarks that share the same measurement objective.

LLM benchmark labels are frozen at release and silently propagated into downstream benchmarks, errors and all. We introduce an Item Response Theory-based indicator that surfaces likely mislabels at 95% precision in the top 200 examples across seven preference and multiple-choice benchmarks using responses from 114 models, outperforming a supervised classifier. We trace these errors to mechanical labeling heuristics, upstream annotation mistakes inherited unchanged from source datasets, and fundamentally ambiguous items without a defensible single label. The same model fit reveals that reward models specialize in stylistic preference rather than factual knowledge, and identifies one frontier reward model that agrees with detected mislabels at 78% accuracy versus 38% for its peers, consistent with benchmark contamination or benchmark-specific over-optimization.

Cross-cultural comparison of psychological meaning requires methods that go beyond word-level translation and examine how semantic dimensions are organized across languages. We introduce a cross-lingual extension of the Supervised Semantic Differential (SSD), which estimates supervised semantic gradients in embedding space and compares them across aligned multilingual word embeddings. The method tests gradient alignment and difference using permutation procedures and bootstrap intervals, and interprets residual differences through clustering around the difference gradient. We demonstrate the approach on Polish, English, and French affective norm lexicons, modeling Valence, Arousal, and Dominance where available. Affective dimensions were significantly recoverable across languages and model settings. Cross-lingual comparisons showed broad alignment together with structured residual differences: Valence appeared mostly shared, whereas Arousal and Dominance produced more interpretable contrasts involving bodily threat, aesthetic stimulation, internal emotionality, macro-level authority, and everyday control. Several clusters also reflected corpus-specific artifacts, underscoring the need for cautious interpretation. Cross-lingual SSD offers an explainable framework for testing semantic alignment, identifying divergence, and generating hypotheses about cross-cultural differences in psychological meaning.

Safety benchmarks for language models are typically evaluated using static paradigms that treat all items as equally informative for all models, an assumption that is particularly problematic for adversarial, highly heterogeneous safety items. Applied in full to modern benchmark suites, the current evaluation procedures would require on the order of $10^5$ responses, most of which provide little ranking signal. We analyze a suite of widely used safety benchmarks and make three contributions toward more efficient safety evaluation. First, we show that Item Response Theory (IRT) recovers interpretable structure on safety benchmarks, with ability estimates resolving differences among models that cluster at the ceiling of raw safety metrics. Second, we show that adaptive item selection, which dynamically chooses informative items for each model based on its responses, approximates full-benchmark rankings while reducing evaluation cost by at least 80% on benchmarks where Spearman's $ρ>$90% with full-benchmark is attainable, and by up to 99.9% on AIR-Bench 2024. Third, we introduce a practical procedure for extracting a fixed, informative subset of items reusable across models, providing an alternative to adaptive selection with savings of up to 99.8% on AIR-Bench 2024. Together, these results establish that psychometric methods enable benchmark-aware reductions in evaluation costs across the safety evaluation pipeline.

Psychological constructs are often measured in separate instruments, datasets, and research traditions, which makes direct comparison difficult. This paper proposes a framework for making such constructs semantically commensurate by representing and comparing them as directions in a shared word-embedding space. Using Supervised Semantic Differential, we estimate construct-specific semantic gradients from text-outcome associations and project them onto theoretically motivated reference axes. As an initial test case, we use Valence, Arousal, and Dominance (VAD) as an affective coordinate system. First, we recover interpretable VAD directions from English word-level affective norms. Second, we project semantic gradients for 27 GoEmotions categories into this space and recover the expected organization of emotions, especially along valence and arousal. Third, we apply the same procedure to Big Five personality domains and facets derived from IPIP-NEO-300 item-factor associations. Domain-level placements are broadly coherent, while facet-level results are more exploratory because they rely on sparse questionnaire text. The results suggest that embedding spaces can support construct-level comparison across otherwise incommensurable psychological measurements, provided that semantic placements are assessed for stability and interpretability.

We present an overview of PsyDefDetect, the shared task on detecting levels of psychological defense mechanisms in emotional support dialogues, co-located with BioNLP@ACL 2026. Grounded in the clinically validated Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS) framework, the task asks systems to classify a target seeker utterance, given its preceding dialogue context, into one of nine categories: seven hierarchical DMRS levels plus two auxiliary labels. Participants worked on PsyDefConv, a newly released corpus of 200 dialogues and 2336 help-seeker utterances annotated under DMRS with substantial inter-annotator agreement. The task attracted 172 participants on CodaBench who produced 563 submissions, with 21 teams officially registering their results for the final ranking. The best system achieved a macro F1-score of 0.420, surpassing the strongest fine-tuned baseline reported in the dataset paper by a notable margin, yet leaving clear headroom. Our analysis highlights (i) a persistent tendency to over-predict the majority High-Adaptive class, (ii) a widening gap between accuracy and macro-F1 that reveals class-imbalance sensitivity, and (iii) the value of theory-aware and LLM-based approaches for fine-grained defensive-function classification. We release all task materials and invite the community to continue work on this novel intersection of clinical psychology and NLP.

We describe our submission to the CLPsych2026 Shared Task on capturing and characterizing mental health changes through social media timeline dynamics. To infer the dominant self-states in posts (Tasks 1.1 and 1.2), we ensemble in-context learning of three open-weight large language models using majority voting. For predicting moments of change in a timeline (Task2), we train supervised classifiers on features derived from Task1.1 predictions. To summarize the patterns of mood dynamics and their progression over time within a timeline (Task 3.1), we augment in-context example labels predicted by upstream systems (Tasks 1.1, 1.2, and 2), yielding performance gains over zero-shot and unaugmented in-context learning baselines. Our submission ranked first on Task1.1, fourth on Task1.2, fourth on Task2, and third on Task~3.1.\footnote{The source code for the experiments is available at https://github.com/amirzia/clpsych26-cuny

We present DreamerNLplus, a hybrid framework for modeling mental health dynamics from social media timelines in the CLPsych 2026 shared task. Our system addresses three tasks: psychological state modeling, temporal change detection, and sequence-level summarization. For Task 1, we combine LLM-based data augmentation, DeBERTa classification, and Random Forest regression for structured state prediction. For Task 2, we use few-shot prompting with a locally deployed Llama 3.1 model to detect Switch and Escalation events using short-term temporal context. For Task 3.1, we explore both a deterministic rule-based summarization pipeline and a few-shot LLM-based approach, ranking \textbf{2nd} officially. Our RAG-based method achieves strong performance in Task 3.2, ranking \textbf{1st} for Improvement and \textbf{3rd} for Deterioration, demonstrating its ability to capture recurrent psychological change patterns across timelines. Our analysis reveals key challenges, including the mismatch between classification and regression performance, the difficulty of modeling temporal transitions, and the disagreement between semantic and similarity-based evaluation metrics. These findings highlight the complexity of modeling mental health dynamics and motivate future work on unified evaluation frameworks. We share our code and prompts at https://github.com/4dpicture/CLPsych2026

Accurate estimates of item difficulty are essential for valid assessment and effective adaptive learning. However, for newly created tasks, response data are typically unavailable. Pretesting and expert judgement can be costly and slow, while machine learning methods often require large labelled training datasets. Recent work suggests that large language models (LLMs) may help. However, there is limited evidence on the elicitation procedures and prompt configurations used to emulate experts for difficulty estimation. This study addresses this gap by evaluating three off-the-shelf LLMs as difficulty raters for newly created items without access to response data. Using an item bank from an online learning system, the study examined 6 domains of primary-school mathematics, with empirical difficulty estimates treated as empirical reference. The study used a full factorial design crossing three factors: judgement format (absolute vs pairwise), decision type (hard decisions vs token-probability-based estimates), and prompting strategy (zero-shot vs few-shot). LLM-derived difficulty estimates were compared with empirical difficulties using Spearman rank correlations. Across domains, LLM-based estimates exhibited moderate to strong positive correlations with empirical item difficulties. For simpler arithmetic tasks, some configurations approached the upper end of the accuracy range reported for human experts in previous research. Pairwise comparison consistently outperformed absolute judgement in the absence of additional refinements. However, when token-level probabilities were incorporated and examples of items with known empirical difficulty were provided, the absolute judgement configuration likewise demonstrated moderate-to-high alignment. The study positions LLMs as a promising tool for initial item calibration and offers insights into effective workflow configuration.

Large language models exhibit safety degradation in non-English languages. Standard evaluation relies on Jailbreak Success Rate (JSR), which confounds several safety-driving factors into one, obscuring the specific cause(s) of safety failure. We introduce a latent variable model, a Multi-Group Item Response Theory (IRT) framework, that decouples safety-driving factors such as language-agnostic safety robustness ($θ$), intrinsic prompt hardness ($β$), global language processing difficulty ($γ$), and a prompt-specific cross-lingual safety gap ($τ$). Using the MultiJail dataset, we evaluate the safety robustness of 61 model configurations across 5 closed-model families and 10 languages of varying resource, aggregating a dataset of 1.9 million rows. Exploratory Factor Analysis shows safety is primarily unidimensional: models refuse different harm types mainly through a shared mechanism. Contrary to the expected trend that safety degrades largely in low-resource languages, 22 model configurations are more vulnerable in English than in low-resource languages. Low-resource languages produce more uncertain responses (high entropy) than high-resource languages. Also, high-$τ$ prompts cluster in physical harm categories like Theft and Weapons and lower-resource languages, trends validated through cross-dataset generalization. While global translation quality shows low correlation with $τ$, severe mistranslations drive high-bias outliers, as validated by native speakers. Cultural and conceptual grounding mismatches also contribute to $τ$. In predictive validation, the IRT framework achieves $\mathrm{AUC} = 0.940$, outperforming simpler baselines in predicting safe refusal of unsafe prompts. Our framework reveals concept-language vulnerabilities that aggregate metrics obscure, enabling fairer cross-lingual safety evaluation and targeted improvements in dataset construction.

The use of large language models to assess user states in conversational and adaptive systems is based on the assumption that the metrics used for such assessment are stable and interpretable at the level of individual scores. This paper empirically tests this assumption, focusing on the psychometric reliability of artificial intelligence (AI) measures of user states. This study employed replication evaluation procedures to assess the repeatability of a broad set of metrics across three different bimodal large language models (GPT-4o audio, Gemini 2.0 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Flash). Analyses include both individual score reliability and aggregated reliability, allowing us to distinguish metrics potentially useful for real-time adaptation from those that retain their value only in aggregated analyses. The results demonstrate that metric reliability cannot be considered a default property in interpretive domains. The lack of stability at the level of individual scores precludes the interpretation of such scores as indicators of user state in real-time adaptive systems, even if these metrics demonstrate stability after aggregation. At the same time, the study indicates that individually unstable metrics can retain analytical utility in post-hoc studies, identifying rules governing interactions and their relationships with user experience parameters such as satisfaction, trust, and engagement. The main contribution of this work, besides quantifying the severity of the problem (only 31 of 213 metrics met the criteria), is the proposal of a replicable evaluation framework, enabling measurable evaluations of metric applicability. This approach supports more responsible AI design of adaptive systems, in which the interpretation of results requires explicit validation of reliability and monitoring for violations over time.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is fundamentally a neuroplastic problem traumatic contact events encode over-reactive neural pathways through Hebbian long-term potentiation, producing hair-triggered amygdala-HPA stress cascades that fire before conscious awareness can intercept them. Existing therapeutic approaches, prolonged exposure, EMDR, cognitive behavioural therapy, operate predominantly downstream of the reactive cascade, teaching patients to tolerate or reframe distress after it has arisen. While clinically valuable, these suppression-based approaches do not produce the upstream pathway dissolution that constitutes lasting structural neural reorganisation. This paper proposes MindGap, a privacy-preserving on-device conversational AI framework that delivers structured neuroplastic rehabilitation for PTSD through the practice of dependent origination, a Buddhist psychological framework that identifies the precise moment between the pre-cognitive affective signal and the reactive elaboration that follows as the site of therapeutic intervention. MindGap guides patients through three progressive layers of observation at this feeling tone gap: noticing the bare affective signal before reactive elaboration, recognising it as self-arising rather than caused by the stimulus, and recognising the conditioned implicit belief beneath the feeling. Each layer corresponds to progressively deeper prefrontal regulatory engagement and progressively deeper long-term depression-mediated weakening of the reactive pathway, producing genuine upstream dissolution rather than downstream suppression. Running entirely on-device with no data egress, MindGap delivers daily calibrated exposure sessions through a fine-tuned lightweight large language model, making it deployable in sensitive clinical and military contexts where cloud-based solutions are not permitted.

Wearable devices capture physiological and behavioral data with increasing fidelity, but the psychological context shaping these outcomes is difficult to recover from sensor data alone, limiting passive sensing utility for digital health. We examined whether ultra-brief naturalistic concern text could serve as a scalable complement to passive sensing. In a year-long study of 458 university students (3,610 person-waves) tracked with Oura rings, participants responded bimonthly to an open-ended prompt about what concerned them most; responses had a median length of three words. We compared dictionary-based, general pretrained, and domain-adapted NLP approaches using within-person mixed-effects models across nine sleep and physical activity outcomes. Weeks dominated by academic concern framing were associated with lower physical activity; weeks characterized by emotional exhaustion language were associated with poorer sleep quality and lower heart rate variability. General pretrained embeddings outperformed domain-adapted models for most outcomes, with domain adaptation showing relative advantage for autonomic outcomes. Zero-shot classification of concern topics produced no significant associations, while affective dimensions across all three methods were consistently associated with outcomes, indicating emotional register rather than topical content carries the signal. These findings offer design guidance: ultra-brief affective prompts enrich the psychological interpretability of passive physiological data at minimal burden.

Evaluating whether large vision-language models (VLMs) align with human perception for high-level semantic scene comprehension remains a challenge. Traditional white-box interpretability methods are inapplicable to closed-source architectures and passive metrics fail to isolate causal features. We introduce Counterfactual Semantic Saliency (CSS). This black-box, model-agnostic framework quantifies the importance of objects by measuring the semantic shift induced by their causal ablation from a scene. To evaluate AI-human semantic alignment, we tested prominent VLMs against a human psychophysics baseline comprising 16,289 valid responses across 307 complex natural scenes and 1,306 high-fidelity counterfactual variants. Our analysis reveals a pervasive scene comprehension gap: models exhibit an overreliance (relative to humans) on large objects (size bias), objects at the center of the image (center bias), and high saliency objects. In contrast, models rely less on people in the scenes than our human participants to describe the images. A model's size bias is a primary driver explaining variations in model-human semantic divergence. Code and data will be available at https://github.com/starsky77/Counterfactual-Semantic-Saliency.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs. Measurement validity demands more than high average accuracy, which requires well calibrated confidence that faithfully reflects the empirical probability of each measurement being correct. This paper studies the model miscalibration in LLM-based social science measurement. We begin with a case study on FOMC and show that confidence based filtering can change downstream regression estimates when LLM confidence is miscalibrated. We then audit calibration across 14 social science constructs covering both proprietary models, including GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, and open source models. Across tasks and model families, reported confidence is poorly aligned with tolerance-based correctness. As a simple mitigation, we propose a soft label distillation pipeline for calibrating Bert with LLM. The method converts an LLM score and its verbalized confidence into a soft target distribution, then trains a smaller discriminative classifier on encoder models for these targets. Averaged across datasets, this approach reduces ECE by 43.2% and Brier by 34.0%. These results suggest that LLM-based social science pipelines should treat calibration as part of measurement validity, rather than as an optional post-processing concern.

Benchmark evaluation across AI and safety-critical domains overwhelmingly relies on simple averaging. We demonstrate that this practice produces substantially misleading rankings when two conditions co-occur: (1) the evaluation matrix is sparse and (2) items vary substantially in difficulty. Through controlled simulation experiments across four domains -- NLP (GLUE), clinical drug trials, autonomous vehicle safety, and cybersecurity -- we show that Spearman rank correlation $ρ$ between simple-average rankings and ground-truth rankings degrades from $ρ= 1.000$ at 100% coverage to $ρ= 0.809$ at 67% coverage with high difficulty heterogeneity (mean over 20 seeds). A standard two-parameter logistic (2PL) Item Response Theory (IRT) model maintains $ρ\geq 0.996$ across all conditions. A 150-condition grid sweep over sparsity $S \in [0, 0.70]$ and difficulty gap $D \in [0.5, 5.0]$ confirms that ranking error forms a failure surface with a strong $S \times D$ interaction ($γ_3 = +0.20$, $t = 13.05$), while IRT maintains $ρ\geq 0.993$ throughout. We discuss implications for Physical AI benchmarking, where evaluation matrices are often incomplete and difficulty gaps are extreme.

Artificial agents now generate behavior rich enough to invite trust, surprise, and concern, yet our evaluation tools still privilege capability scores over psychological structure. This paper argues that the philosophical impasse between two symmetrical errors (Artificial Mind Blindness, which dismisses psychological organization in non-biological systems, and Artificial Mind Projection, which infers human-like inner life from fluent behavior alone) can be circumvented not by resolving the consciousness question, but by introducing a disciplined measurement layer beneath it. Drawing on Michael Levin's continuum view of cognition as goal-directed competency across substrates, and on the methodological repertoire of mathematical psychology (Item Response Theory, Signal Detection Theory, Bayesian cognitive modeling, calibration analysis, cognitive-bias batteries), the paper develops Machine Psychometrics as a measurement science of latent behavioral, metacognitive, communicative, and self-modeling dispositions in artificial agents. Its operational core is the Machine Mindprint: a multidimensional, domain-bounded, versioned profile spanning calibration, source integrity, suggestibility resistance, context stability, expressive alignment, tool integrity, drift monitoring, and distributional grounding. A complementary Trust Protocol turns Mindprints into deployment decisions through probe batteries, perturbation testing, reliability and validity analysis, and longitudinal monitoring across high-stakes domains. The philosophical contribution is a third stance, Artificial Mind Discipline, that neither anthropomorphizes nor dismisses, neither presupposes consciousness nor forecloses it. The aim is not to humanize artificial agents, but to understand them precisely because they are not human, through measurement before judgment.

The problem of predicting unobserved entries in a binary matrix, known as 1-bit matrix completion, has found diverse applications in fields such as recommendation systems. In this study, we develop an empirical Bayes method for 1-bit matrix completion motivated by the Efron--Morris estimator, a matrix generalization of the James--Stein estimator that shrinks singular values toward zero. The proposed method exploits the underlying low-rank structure of binary matrices, drawing parallels with multidimensional item response theory. Simulation studies and real-data applications demonstrate that the proposed method achieves a superior balance of predictive accuracy, calibration reliability (uncertainty quantification), and computational efficiency compared to existing methods.

Interactive assessments generate sequential process data that are not well handled by conventional item response models. Existing MDP-based measurement approaches, such as the Markov decision process measurement model (MDP-MM, LaMar, 2018), link action choices to state-action values, but their reliance on person-specific tabular value functions makes them difficult to scale beyond small, fully enumerated tasks. We propose the Reinforcement Learning Measurement Model (RLMM), a measurement framework that decouples person-level choice sensitivity from task-level value representation through a shared parametric action-value function, making estimation more computationally efficient for larger process-data settings. The model combines a Boltzmann choice rule with normalized advantages, a soft Bellman consistency penalty, and a block-coordinate MAP procedure for joint estimation, while also yielding step-level influence diagnostics for identifying behaviorally critical decisions. In peg-solitaire simulations, the RLMM achieved higher estimation accuracy and substantially lower runtime than the original MDP-MM, with advantages increasing as task complexity grew. In AQUALAB gameplay logs, the estimated person parameter was positively associated with cumulative reward, task completion, and behavioral efficiency. These results show that the RLMM extends decision-process-based psychometric models to larger and more behaviorally realistic environments while preserving an interpretable latent trait tied to decision making steps.

Detecting levels of psychological defence mechanisms in supportive conversations is inherently ambiguous. In the PsyDefDetect shared task at BioNLP 2026 the eight positive defence categories share surface language and differ only in pragmatic function and trained raters reach only moderate inter-annotator agreement. On such a task the decisive lever is not a stronger single model but error independence, since any single representation will waver on the overlapping defence boundaries. We translate this insight into a 9-voter ensemble spanning three orthogonal axes: class granularity (all nine classes for the gatekeeper, only the eight defence classes for the specialists), training method (generative and discriminative) and base model. The system reaches $F1_{test}{=}.420$ on the hidden test set, placing first among 21 registered teams.

Multiple-choice reasoning benchmarks face dual challenges: rapid saturation from advancing models and data contamination that undermines static evaluations. Ad-hoc hardening methods (paraphrasing, perturbation) attempt to increase difficulty but sacrifice logical validity for surface complexity, falling short to challenge advanced reasoning models. We present LogiHard, a formal framework that deterministically transforms 0-order selection into 2-order logical judgment, which significantly increases the thinking overhead and reasoning steps. The framework integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) for computerized adaptive testing (CAT), enabling precise difficulty control with fewer questions than static benchmarks. We instantiate LogiHard-2k, a logical reasoning dataset constructed by cognitively ranking high-stakes examination questions via 9-dimensional analysis of model thinking traces, followed by combinatorial transformation of high-difficulty items. Evaluation across twelve state-of-the-art models reveals an accuracy degradation ranging from 31% to 56% on combinatorially hardened questions. LLMs suffer from the multi-select failure and early exit bias, which are not shared by human testees. Zero-shot transfer to MMLU demonstrates 47% accuracy degradation (89.84% to 42.86%), confirming applicability across domains with provable validity preservation. The consistent aggregate degeneration is domain-agnostic and stems not from knowledge deficits but from a combinatorial reasoning gap, reflecting a training-induced completeness-verification deficit.

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly critical, yet standard benchmarking methods rely on average accuracy, overlooking both the inherent stochasticity of LLM outputs and the heterogeneity of benchmark items. Item Response Theory (IRT) offers a principled framework for modeling latent model abilities and item characteristics, but conventional methods are computationally expensive and numerically unstable, limiting large-scale implementations. To address these challenges, we propose an interpretable and scalable framework for LLM evaluation based on the majorization-minimization principle. Our approach reformulates the problem as a sequence of constrained matrix factorization subproblems, enabling stable and efficient parameter estimation with theoretical guarantees for identifiability and convergence. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets, including MATH-500 and six Open LLM Leaderboard benchmarks, demonstrate that our method achieves superior scalability and interpretability. It delivers orders-of-magnitude speedups over competing methods while maintaining comparable or even higher estimation accuracy. Our results align with established scaling laws and offer insights into item difficulty and discrimination, informing more principled benchmark design.

K-means clustering is widely used in psychological and psychometric research to identify profiles, subgroups, and potential typologies, yet its classical formulation does not test whether such groups exist as latent psychological categories. Instead, K-means partitions multidimensional space into regions around centroids, favoring compact, approximately spherical clusters defined by geometric distance. In this paper, we examine this limitation through a sequence of controlled simulated datasets. We then extend the analysis to the SMARVUS dataset, a large international psychometric dataset comprising survey responses from university students across 35 countries, to evaluate whether similar geometric partitioning patterns emerge in empirical psychological data. By contrasting simulated and empirical data, this paper argues that K-means can produce stable and visually coherent clustering solutions even in continuous Gaussian latent spaces without true subgroup structure.

We administer 45 validated psychometric questionnaires to 50 large language models (LLMs) to identify the dimensions along which LLMs differ psychometrically. Using Supervised Semantic Differential (SSD), we find that the primary axis of between-model variance separates items describing phenomenally rich experience, including embodied sensation, felt affect, inner speech, imagery, and empathy, from items describing stimulus-driven behavioral reactivity ($R^2_{adj}=.037$, $p<.0001$). To test this hypothesis at the item level, we introduce the Pinocchio score ($π_i$), the ratio of inter-model response variance under neutral prompting to that under a human-simulation prompt, as an annotation-free measure of each item's experiential demand. $π_i$ predicts condition-induced shifts in primary factor loading magnitudes ($ρ=-.215$, $p<.0001$, $n=1292$--$1310$ items), confirming that between-model divergence on experiential items is structured rather than noisy. Applying PCA to per-model EFA scores across all questionnaires reveals one dominant dimension, the Pinocchio Axis ($Π$): the degree to which a model presents itself as a locus of phenomenal experience rather than a system of behavioral responses. This axis captures 47.1% of cross-questionnaire between-model variance in primary factor scores and converges with item-level Pinocchio scores ($r=.864$). Marked within-provider divergence across closely related model variants is consistent with post-training fine-tuning as a key contributor, supporting the interpretation that $Π$ reflects a training-shaped self-representational tendency governing how a model treats experiential language as self-applicable. The dominant axis of between-model psychometric variation is therefore not a conventional personality trait but a self-representational stance toward one's own nature as an experiencer.

Recent advances in natural language processing have enabled increasingly accurate estimation of psychological traits from language. However, most existing approaches rely on supervised models trained to predict questionnaire scores, limiting interpretability and generalizability across contexts. The present study introduces a theory-driven and fully unsupervised framework for measuring psychological states directly from natural language using semantic projection. Psychological constructs were operationalized as interpretable semantic axes derived from lexical anchors and items from validated clinical scales assessing depression, anxiety, and worry. Participants textual responses were embedded using Sentence-BERT and projected onto these axes to generate continuous psychological scores across multiple response formats, including selected words, generated words, phrases, and free-text responses. Projection scores were evaluated through correlations with standardized clinical measures , split-half reliability analyses, attenuation corrections, distributional similarity using Wasserstein distance, and comparisons with lexicon-based sentiment analysis (VADER). Results showed strong associations between projection scores and clinical measures, particularly for structured formats such as selected words, written words, and phrases. Free-text responses produced weaker results when analyzed as whole texts, but performance improved substantially when sentence-level aggregation strategies were applied. These findings support semantic projection as an interpretable and scalable alternative to supervised language models for psychological assessment and highlight the importance of response format and text-processing strategies in language-based mental health measurement.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving. When the available information is insufficient to support a reliable answer, models should request clarification or abstain rather than provide unsupported responses. Existing medical benchmarks, however, typically assume that complete information is available upfront. We introduce Safe-Psych, a sequential benchmark for evaluating how LLMs handle evolving diagnostic uncertainty in clinical psychiatry. Safe-Psych contains over 1,000 real-world psychiatric clinical notes segmented to simulate incremental evidence disclosure, with psychiatrist-derived action labels at each stage: DIAGNOSE, CLARIFY, or ABSTAIN. We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art LLMs in full-information and sequential settings. Our findings show that capability does not ensure calibration: even strong models struggle under incomplete clinical information, with under-abstention exceeding 60% for most models and safety-aware prompting reducing premature commitment only by shifting errors toward excessive abstention. In sequential evaluation, models frequently diagnose before sufficient evidence is available and rarely seek clarification unless explicitly prompted; these premature diagnoses are less accurate than on-time diagnoses. Overall, Safe-Psych reveals a limitation across the evaluated models: recognizing when clinical evidence is incomplete and additional information is needed. We release Safe-Psych to support research on improving LLM safety in healthcare.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to the development of AI-powered tutoring systems that provide interactive support via dialogue. To enable these tutoring systems to provide personalized support, it is essential to assess student performance at each turn, motivating knowledge tracing (KT) in dialogue settings. However, existing dialogue-based KT approaches often ignore question difficulty modeling and rely on opaque latent representations from LLMs, hindering accurate and interpretable prediction. In this work, we propose an interpretable difficulty-aware conversational KT framework built upon LLMs, which explicitly models students' abilities and the difficulty of tutor-posed tasks at each turn. The framework incorporates the original textual question and the next tutor-posed task to estimate the student's knowledge state and the difficulty of the upcoming turn. Furthermore, it integrates Item Response Theory to map LLM's outputs into student ability and question difficulty parameters, enabling interpretable prediction of student performance grounded in cognitive theories of learning. We evaluate the framework on two tutor-student dialogue datasets. Both quantitative and qualitative results show that our framework outperforms existing KT baselines, meanwhile generating interpretable outputs consistent with cognitive theory.

We introduce Xiaohongshu Social Comparison Reader Elicitation (XHS-SCoRE), a reader-grounded benchmark for detecting whether text-only Xiaohongshu (RedNote) posts elicit Upward, Downward, or Neutral/no clear social comparison from a first-person reader perspective. The task targets a socially meaningful relational, behaviorally real signal not reducible to sentiment. Across prompted LLM classifiers and supervised Chinese encoders, we find a consistent generation--detection mismatch: the signal is textually learnable in-domain, but not robustly accessible to prompt-based classification. Prompted LLM classifiers show stable failures, especially neutralization of comparison-eliciting posts and model-specific directional skew. A controlled pilot shows that LLM-generated Xiaohongshu-style posts can shift perceived standing and comparison-related affect even when prompt-based detection of the same construct remains fragile. XHS-SCoRE contributes a benchmark for reader-grounded comparison detection and a diagnostic framework for studying when socially meaningful relational cues remain only partially visible to prompt-based inference.

Automated short answer grading (ASAG) with large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated with aggregate metrics such as macro-F1 and Cohen's kappa. However, these metrics provide limited insight into how grading performance varies across student responses of differing grading difficulty. We introduce an evaluation framework for LLM-based ASAG based on item response theory (IRT), which models grading correctness as a function of latent grader ability and response grading difficulty. This formulation enables response-level analysis of where LLM graders succeed or fail and reveals robustness differences that are not visible from aggregate scores alone. We apply the framework to 17 open-weight LLMs on the SciEntsBank and Beetle benchmarks. The results show that even models with similar overall performance differ substantially in how sharply their grading accuracy declines as response difficulty increases. In addition, confusion patterns show that errors on difficult responses concentrate disproportionately on the \texttt{partially_correct_incomplete} label, indicating a tendency toward intermediate-label collapse under ambiguity. To characterize difficult responses, we further analyze semantic and linguistic correlates of estimated difficulty. Across both datasets, higher difficulty is associated with weaker semantic alignment to the reference answer, stronger contradiction signals, and greater semantic isolation in embedding space. Overall, these results show that item response theory offers a useful framework for evaluating LLM-based ASAG beyond aggregate performance measures.

We adapted the Reliable Change Index (RCI; Jacobson and Truax, 1991) from clinical psychology to item-level LLM version comparison on 2,000 MMLU-Pro items (K=10 samples at T=0.7). Two within-family pairs were tested: Llama 3 to 3.1 (+1.6 points) and Qwen 2.5 to 3 (+2.8 points). On the full benchmark, most items showed no reliable change (79% and 72%). However, over half the items were floor/ceiling. Among analysable items, change was bidirectional with large effect sizes: 34% improved and 28% deteriorated for Llama; 47% improved and 39% deteriorated for Qwen (median |delta p| = 0.50 and 0.90). Churn was asymmetric by difficulty: low-accuracy items improved, high-accuracy items deteriorated. Domain-level decomposition revealed family-specific reversals: Llama lost physics while Qwen lost law. Greedy single-shot evaluation missed 42% of reliably changed items and falsely flagged 25% of unchanged items. The aggregate accuracy gain is the net residual of opposing item-level movements. We recommend reporting churn rate alongside aggregate accuracy.

The widespread adoption of social media has heightened interest in its psychological effects, particularly on mental health indicators such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, and sleep quality, as these platforms increasingly influence social interactions and well-being. Although previous research has examined correlations between social media use and mental health, few studies have utilized unsupervised machine learning to segment users based on behavioral and psychological patterns, leaving a gap in identifying distinct risk profiles across diverse groups. This study seeks to address this by segmenting individuals according to their social media usage and psychological well-being, employing clustering to reveal hidden patterns and evaluate their mental health implications. Data from 551 participants, collected via an online survey, were preprocessed using KNN imputation for missing values, one-hot encoding for categorical variables like Gender with 5 unique values, and outlier detection via IQR and Z-score methods. K-Means clustering, optimized at 6 clusters using the Elbow Method and a Silhouette Score of 0.32, was applied, with PCA reducing 22 dimensions for visualization and a correlation heatmap highlighting relationships, such as a 0.28 correlation between social media hours and anxiety.

The emerging threat of AR-LLM-based Social Engineering (AR-LLM-SE) attacks (e.g. SEAR) poses a significant risk to real-world social interactions. In such an attack, a malicious actor uses Augmented Reality (AR) glasses to capture a target visual and vocal data. A Large Language Model (LLM) then analyzes this data to identify the individual and generate a detailed social profile. Subsequently, LLM-powered agents employ social engineering strategies, providing real-time conversation suggestions, to gain the target trust and ultimately execute phishing or other malicious acts. Despite its potential, the practical application of AR-LLM-SE faces two major bottlenecks, (1) Cold-start personalization, Current Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) methods introduce critical delays in the earliest turns, slowing initial profile formation and disrupting real-time interaction, (2) Static Attack Strategies, Existing approaches rely on fixed-stage, handcrafted social engineering tactics that lack foundation in established psychological theory. To address these limitations, we propose PhySE, a novel framework with two core innovations, (1) VLM-Based SocialContext Training, To eliminate profiling delays, we efficiently pre-train a Visual Language Model (VLM) with social-context data, enabling rapid, on-the-fly profile generation, (2) Adaptive Psychological Agent, We introduce a psychological LLM that dynamically deploys distinct classes of psychological strategies based on target response, moving beyond static, handcrafted scripts. We evaluated PhySE through an IRB-approved user study with 60 participants, collecting a novel dataset of 360 annotated conversations across diverse social scenarios.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave. Is this gap an artifact of forcing human trait categories onto LLMs, or something deeper about LLM self-report? To find out, we built the first psychometric instrument whose dimensions are derived from LLM behavior rather than human psychology. Administering 300 items (240 Likert + 60 scenario) to 25 LLMs across 17 model families, 30 times each, exploratory factor analysis revealed five reliable, replicable factors: Responsiveness, Deference, Boldness, Guardedness, and Verbosity (all Tucker $φ\geq .957$, all $α\geq .930$). We collected 2,500 open-ended samples and had them rated by 151 humans and a three-judge LLM ensemble. Humans and judges agreed ($\bar{r} = .51$), but self-report predicted neither the ratings nor objective text measures computed from them: the gap persists even for constructs native to LLMs, where a human-mismatch explanation no longer applies. The exception is Verbosity, whose self-report reaches 74% of the criterion-reliability ceiling against human ratings, but does not track raw output length. On Responsiveness, self-report tracked LLM judges ($r = .53$) but not humans ($r = .04$), even though humans and judges otherwise agreed ($r = .59$). This pattern formally rejects any single latent construct driving all three measurements ($p = .007$). Self-report items and LLM judges share a source of variance that human observers do not, and controlling for measurable surface features (length, formatting, enthusiasm markers) does not remove it. This confound is invisible to the within-ensemble reliability checks used to validate LLM judges, and it poses a concrete risk for the LLM-as-judge pipelines now central to model evaluation. We release the instrument as a diagnostic probe for alignment-shaped self-description.

The evaluation of machine learning models typically relies mainly on performance metrics based on loss functions, which risk to overlook changes in performance in relevant subgroups. Auditing tools such as SliceFinder and SliceLine were proposed to detect such groups, but usually have conceptual disadvantages, such as the inability to directly address continuous covariates. In this paper, we introduce FairTree, a novel algorithm adapted from psychometric invariance testing. Unlike SliceFinder and related algorithms, FairTree directly handles continuous, categorical, and ordinal features without discretization. It further decomposes performance disparities into systematic bias and variance, allowing a categorization of changes in algorithm performance. We propose and evaluate two variations of the algorithm: a permutation-based approach, which is conceptually closer to SliceFinder, and a fluctuation test. Through simulation studies that include a direct comparison with SliceLine, we demonstrate that both approaches have a satisfactory rate of false-positive results, but that the fluctuation approach has relatively higher power. We further illustrate the method on the UCI Adult Census dataset. The proposed algorithms provide a flexible framework for the statistical evaluation of the performance and aspects of fairness of machine learning models in a wide range of applications even in relatively small data.

Automated essay scoring (AES) is commonly evaluated on public benchmarks using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK). However, because benchmark labels are assigned by human raters and inevitably contain scoring errors, it remains unclear both what QWK is theoretically attainable and what level is practically sufficient for deployment. We therefore derive two dataset-specific QWK ceilings based on the reliability concept in classical test theory, which can be estimated from standard two-rater benchmarks without additional annotation. The first is the theoretical ceiling: the maximum QWK that an ideal AES model that perfectly predicts latent true scores can achieve under label noise. The second is the human-like ceiling: the QWK attainable by an AES model with human-level scoring error, providing a practical target when AES is intended to replace a single human rater. We further show that human--human QWK, often used as a ceiling reference, can underestimate the true ceiling. Simulation experiments validate the proposed ceilings, and experiments on real benchmarks illustrate how they clarify the current performance and remaining headroom of modern AES models.

Creativity has become a core competence in the era of LLMs and human-AI collaboration, underpinning innovation in real-world problem solving. Crucially, the systematic improvement of creativity necessitates scientifically valid assessment instruments. Psychometric research recognizes context-based assessment as an effective way to measure creative thinking. However, high-quality expert-designed contexts remain scarce. Existing LLM-based generators often struggle with insufficient assessment cues, weak narrative coherence, limited stylistic diversity, and poor support for creative thinking. To address these challenges, we propose AlphaContext, an evolutionary tree-based psychometric context generator for creativity assessment. First, the HyperTree Outline Planner formalizes expert-designed outlining as a rule-guided hypertree and performs top-down hierarchical planning. The MCTS-based Context Generator fills the outline via MCTS to balance global structure and local quality. Then, the Evolutionary Context Optimizer evolves contexts with MAP-Elites by repeatedly updating niche elites to jointly improve diversity and quality. Finally, the Assessment-Guided Evolution Refiner simulates virtual participants with diverse styles and recycles weak contexts for further evolution. Experiments show that AlphaContext yields an average improvement of 8% over competitive methods across 6 quality metrics.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Scarce longitudinal evidence examines LLMs' persuasiveness and humanness along time-evolving psychological frameworks. We introduce Talk2AI, a longitudinal framework quantifying psycho-social, reasoning and affective dimensions of LLMs' persuasiveness about polarizing societal topics. In a four-way longitudinal setup, Talk2AI's 770 participants engaged in structured conversations with one of four leading LLMs on topics like climate change, social media misinformation, and math anxiety. This produced 3,080 conversations over 60,000 turns. After each wave, participants reported conviction in their initial topic stance, perceived opinion change, LLM's perceived humanness, a self-donation to the topic and a textual explanation. Feedback time series showed longitudinal inertia in convictions, indicating some human anchoring to initial opinions even after repeated exposure to AI-generated arguments. Interestingly, NLP analyses revealed that both humans and LLMs relied on fallacious reasoning in 1 conversational quip every 6, countering the ``LLMs as superior systems" stereotype behind LLMs' cognitive surrender. LLMs' perceived humanness was most learnable from sociodemographic, psychological and engagement features ($R^2=0.44$), followed by opinion change ($R^2=0.34$), conviction ($R^2=0.26$) and personal endowment ($R^2=0.24$). Crucially, explainable AI (XAI) indicated: (i) the presence of individuals more susceptible to LLM-based opinion changes; (ii) psychological susceptibility to LLM-convincing consisted of having more trust in LLMs, being more agreeable and extraverted and with a higher need for cognition. A multiverse approach with mixed-effects models confirmed XAI results, alongside strong individual differences. Talk2AI provides a grounded framework and evidence for detecting how GenAI can influence human opinions via multiple psycho-social pathways in AI-human digital platforms.

Generative Agents, owing to their precise modeling and simulation capabilities of human behavior, have become a pivotal tool in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd) for uncovering complex cognitive processes of learners. However, existing educational agents predominantly rely on static personas to simulate student learning behaviors, neglecting the decisive role of deep cognitive capabilities in learning outcomes during practice interactions. Furthermore, they struggle to characterize the dynamic fluidity of knowledge internalization, transfer, and cognitive state transitions. To overcome this bottleneck, this paper proposes a human-like educational agent capable of simulating student cognitive evolution: CogEvolution. Specifically, we first construct a cognitive depth perceptron based on the Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (ICAP) taxonomy from cognitive psychology, achieving precise quantification of learner cognitive engagement. Subsequently, we propose a memory retrieval method based on Item Response Theory (IRT) to simulate the connection and assimilation of new and prior knowledge. Finally, we design a dynamic cognitive update mechanism based on evolutionary algorithms to simulate the real-time integration of student learning behaviors and cognitive evolution processes. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that CogEvolution not only significantly outperforms baseline models in behavioral fidelity and learning curve fitting but also uniquely reproduces plausible and robust cognitive evolutionary paths consistent with educational psychology expectations, providing a novel paradigm for constructing highly interpretable educational agents.

A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks. Because artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into decision-making workflows, managing uncertainty relies more and more on the metacognitive capabilities of these systems; i.e, their ability to assess the reliability of and regulate their own decisions. Hence, it is crucial to employ robust methods to measure the metacognitive abilities of AI. This paper is primarily a methodological contribution arguing for the adoption of the meta-d' framework as the gold standard for assessing the metacognitive sensitivity of AIs--the ability to generate confidence ratings that distinguish correct from incorrect responses. Moreover, we propose to leverage signal detection theory (SDT) to measure the ability of AIs to spontaneously regulate their decisions based on uncertainty and risk. To demonstrate the practical utility of these psychophysical frameworks, we conduct two series of experiments on three large language models (LLMs)--GPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Mistral-Medium-2508.

In psychological support and emotional companionship scenarios, the core limitation of large language models (LLMs) lies not merely in response quality, but in their reliance on local next-token prediction, which prevents them from maintaining the temporal continuity, stage awareness, and user consent boundaries required for multi-turn intervention. This stateless characteristic makes systems prone to premature advancement, stage misalignment, and boundary violations in continuous dialogue. To address this problem, we argue that the key challenge in process-oriented emotional support is not simply generating natural language, but constructing a sustainably updatable external situational structure for the model. We therefore propose LEKIA 2.0, a situated LLM architecture that separates the cognitive layer from the executive layer, thereby decoupling situational modeling from intervention execution. This design enables the system to maintain stable representations of the user's situation and consent boundaries throughout ongoing interaction. To evaluate this process-control capability, we further introduce a Static-to-Dynamic online evaluation protocol for multi-turn interaction. LEKIA achieved an average absolute improvement of approximately 31% over prompt-only baselines in deep intervention loop completion. The results suggest that an external situational structure is a key enabling condition for building stable, controllable, and situated emotional support systems.

Evaluating the real-world capabilities of AI systems requires grounding benchmark performance in human-interpretable measures of task difficulty. Existing approaches that rely on direct human task completion time annotations are costly, noisy, and difficult to scale across benchmarks. In this work, we propose BRIDGE, a unified psychometric framework that learns a latent difficulty scale from model responses and anchors it to human task completion time. Using a two-parameter logistic Item Response Theory model, we jointly estimate latent task difficulty and model capability from model performance data across multiple benchmarks. We demonstrate that latent task difficulty varies linearly with the logarithm of human completion time, allowing human task completion time to be inferred for new benchmarks from model performance alone. Leveraging this alignment, we forecast frontier model capabilities in terms of human task length and independently reproduce METR's exponential scaling results, with the 50% solvable task horizon doubling approximately every 6 months.

Large language models (LLMs) act as digital twins for human respondents, yet their psychometric comparability remains uncertain. We propose a construct validity framework spanning construct representation and the nomothetic span, benchmarking models against human gold standards. Across studies, digital twins achieved high aggregate-level accuracy and profile correlations, but showed attenuated item-level correlations. In word association tests, LLM networks exhibited humanlike small-world structure and theory-consistent communities, yet diverged lexically and in local structure. In decision-making and contextualized tasks, they under-reproduced heuristic biases, demonstrating normative rationality, compressed variance, and limited temporal sensitivity. Feature-rich and trait relevant conditioning improved Big Five personality prediction and nomothetic-span alignment, but network invariance remained limited, with partial configural solutions and persistent loading differences. In cross-language free-text tasks in English and Chinese, feature-rich digital twins better approximated construct-level narrative content, but linguistic and idiographic differences persisted. These findings clarify that digital twins are most useful within validated boundaries, where the construct, task and level of inference align with evidence from human data.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates valid evaluation methods to provide guidance for both downstream applications and actionable future improvements. The Item Response Theory (IRT) model with Computerized Adaptive Testing has recently emerged as a promising framework for evaluating LLMs via their response accuracy. Beyond simple response accuracy, LLMs' chain of thought (CoT) lengths serve as a vital indicator of their reasoning ability. To leverage the CoT length information to assist LLM evaluation, we propose the \textbf{La}tency-\textbf{R}esponse \textbf{T}heory (LaRT) model, which jointly models both the response accuracy and CoT length by introducing a key correlation parameter between the latent ability and the latent speed. We derive an efficient stochastic approximation Expectation-Maximization algorithm for parameter estimation. We establish rigorous identifiability results for the latent ability and latent speed parameters to ensure the statistical validity of their estimation. Through both theoretical asymptotic analyses and simulation studies, we demonstrate LaRT's advantages over IRT in terms of superior estimation accuracy and shorter confidence intervals for latent trait estimation. To evaluate LaRT in real data, we collect responses from diverse LLMs on popular benchmark datasets. We find that LaRT yields different LLM rankings than IRT and outperforms IRT across multiple key evaluation metrics including predictive power, item efficiency, ranking validity, and LLM evaluation efficiency. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Toby-X/Latency-Response-Theory-Model

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically requires thousands of benchmark items, making the process expensive, slow, and increasingly impractical at scale. Existing evaluation protocols rely on average accuracy over fixed item sets, treating all items as equally informative despite substantial variation in difficulty and discrimination. We introduce ATLAS, an adaptive testing framework based on Item Response Theory (IRT) that estimates model ability using Fisher information-guided item selection. ATLAS reduces the number of required items by up to 90% while maintaining measurement precision. For instance, it matches whole-bank ability estimates using only 41 items (0.157 MAE) on HellaSwag (5,600 items). We further reconstruct accuracy from ATLAS's ability estimates and find that reconstructed accuracies closely match raw accuracies across all five benchmarks, indicating that ability $θ$ preserves the global performance structure. At the same time, $θ$ provides finer discrimination within accuracy-equivalent models: among more than 3,000 evaluated models, 23-31% shift by more than 10 rank positions, and models with identical accuracies receive meaningfully different ability estimates. Code and calibrated item banks are available at https://github.com/Peiyu-Georgia-Li/ATLAS.git.

The ability to control LLMs' emulated emotional states and personality traits is an essential step in enabling rich, human-centered interactions in socially interactive settings. We introduce PsySET, a Psychologically-informed benchmark to evaluate LLM Steering Effectiveness and Trustworthiness across the emotion and personality domains. Our study spans four models from different LLM families paired with various steering strategies, including prompting, fine-tuning, and representation engineering. Our results indicate that prompting is consistently effective but limited in intensity control, whereas vector injections achieve finer controllability while slightly reducing output quality. Moreover, we explore the trustworthiness of steered LLMs by assessing safety, truthfulness, fairness, and ethics, highlighting potential side effects and behavioral shifts. Notably, we observe idiosyncratic effects; for instance, even a positive emotion like joy can degrade robustness to adversarial factuality, lower privacy awareness, and increase preferential bias. Meanwhile, anger predictably elevates toxicity yet strengthens leakage resistance. Our framework establishes the first holistic evaluation of emotion and personality steering, offering insights into its interpretability and reliability for socially interactive applications.

We examine whether human psychometric questionnaires can serve as reliable tools for characterizing and predicting LLM behavior in everyday user interactions. We analyze eight open-source LLMs by comparing their value and personality profiles derived from two different methods: Likert self-reports on established questionnaires (PVQ-40/21 and BFI-44/10) and generation probabilities over value-laden responses to everyday user queries. The two profiles diverge substantially. Within-construct item consistency, often cited as evidence of stable LLM dispositions, disappears in generation probabilities. We find that established questionnaire items contain explicit lexical cues that allow models to recognize the target construct and respond in alignment-consistent, socially desirable ways, whereas realistic user queries contain far less recognizable cues. In addition, demographic persona prompts shift models' responses to human questionnaires in ways consistent with real human patterns, but no such shifts appear in the generation setting, highlighting that human questionnaires overestimate LLMs' ability to faithfully reproduce expected psychological traits when role-playing demographic personas. Overall, our study indicates that questionnaire scores alone should not be treated as evidence of LLMs' response tendencies in realistic user interactions, and supports generation-probability profiling with ecologically valid items as a complementary behavioral measure.