Psychometrics

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Psychiatry research seeks to understand the manifestations of psychopathology in behavior, as measured in questionnaire data, by identifying a small number of latent factors that explain them. While factor analysis is the canonical tool for this purpose, the resulting factors may not be interpretable, and may also be subject to confounding variables. Moreover, missing data are common, and explicit imputation is often required. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Interpretability Constrained Questionnaire Factorization (ICQF), a non-negative matrix factorization method with regularization tailored for questionnaire data. Our method aims to promote factor interpretability and solution stability. We provide an optimization procedure with theoretical convergence guarantees, and an automated procedure to determine latent dimensionality accurately. We validate these procedures using realistic synthetic data. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in a widely used general-purpose questionnaire, in two independent datasets (the Healthy Brain Network and Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development studies). Specifically, we show that ICQF preserves diagnostic information across a range of disorders, outperforming competing methods for smaller dataset sizes, and improves interpretability, as assessed by our clinical research collaborators and co-authors. This suggests that the regularization in our method matches domain characteristics, in addition to satisfying qualitative desiderata.

User preferences are increasingly used to personalize Large Language Model (LLM) responses, yet reliably leveraging preference signals remains under-explored. In practice, preferences can be noisy, incomplete, or even misleading, which can degrade answer quality when applied naively. Motivated by the observation that stable personality traits shape everyday preferences, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment for Choices Inference via Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-driven preference alignment framework that uses Big-Five (OCEAN) traits as a principled "latent" signal for organizing and reasoning over user preference history. To systematically evaluate this framework, we construct a psychometrics-based dataset containing 1,200 preference-query pairs spanning diverse domains (e.g., travel, movies, and education), with comprehensive coverage of high and low Big-Five trait directions. Extensive experiments show that trait-aligned preferences substantially improve personalized QA: given clean, trait-aligned context, LLMs reach near-ceiling accuracy (up to 99%), confirming that reasoning capability is not the bottleneck. The challenge is that real histories are mixed-trait and unlabeled. We show the true bottleneck is retrieval: a persona-aware contrastive retriever (PiRAG) raises label-free accuracy from 30% to 43% over standard semantic retrieval, without any trait annotations at inference.

Agentic AI evaluation pipelines produce benchmark scores that justify deployment decisions, safety certifications, and regulatory compliance claims. No formal framework has yet characterized how validity degrades across the stages of these pipelines. We present a three-layer compounding validity model, $V_{total} \leq V_1 \times V_2 \times V_3$, that captures multiplicative degradation across task generation ($V_1$), human-simulator calibration ($V_2$), and automated judgment ($V_3$). Under empirically grounded estimates, a pipeline retaining 70% validity at each stage is at most 34% valid against the intended construct (range 0.17-0.54 across the empirical estimate bounds). We examine the model's predictions against a structured survey of 55 published agentic evaluation papers, finding that approximately 82% of papers in this purposive sample apply structurally mismatched, incomplete, or absent inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics, a pattern consistent with systematic $V_3$ collapse. We further identify empirical evidence of $V_1$ failures (task validity flaws in 7 of 10 popular benchmarks) and $V_2$ miscalibration (up to 9 percentage points inter-simulator variance, with systematic demographic disparities for non-Standard American English speakers). We derive eight prescriptions grounded in psychometric science and domain-stratified reliability thresholds (ICC $\geq$ 0.70; $\alpha \geq$ 0.67/0.70/0.80 by consequence level) that practitioners and benchmark authors can apply immediately. The framework provides a tractable knowledge-based tool for diagnosing and correcting evaluation pipeline validity before deployment decisions are made.