PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 3, 20250 citationsOpen Access

AIPsychoBench: Understanding the Psychometric Differences between LLMs and Humans

View Full Paper
WXWei XieSMSisi MaZWZhenhua Wang

Key Points

  • AIPsychoBench improves LLM response rates from 70.12% to 90.40%, highlighting effective benchmarking.
  • The benchmark shows biases of only 3.3% positive and 2.1% negative, significantly lower than traditional jailbreak prompts.
  • Significant score deviations ranging from 5% to 20.2% in seven languages indicate linguistic impact on LLM psychometrics.
  • Many existing human scales are inadequate for assessing LLM psychometric properties, resulting in high rejection rates.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) with hundreds of billions of parameters have exhibited human-like intelligence by learning from vast amounts of internet-scale data. However, the uninterpretability of large-scale neural networks raises concerns about the reliability of LLM. Studies have attempted to assess the psychometric properties of LLMs by borrowing concepts from human psychology to enhance their interpretability, but they fail to account for the fundamental differences between LLMs and humans. This results in high rejection rates when human scales are reused directly. Furthermore, these scales do not support the measurement of LLM psychological property variations in different languages. This paper introduces AIPsychoBench, a specialized benchmark tailored to assess the psychological properties of LLM. It uses a lightweight role-playing prompt to bypass LLM alignment, improving the average effective response rate from 70.12% to 90.40%. Meanwhile, the average biases are only 3.3% (positive) and 2.1% (negative), which are significantly lower than the biases of 9.8% and 6.9%, respectively, caused by traditional jailbreak prompts. Furthermore, among the total of 112 psychometric subcategories, the score deviations for seven languages compared to English ranged from 5% to 20.2% in 43 subcategories, providing the first comprehensive evidence of the linguistic impact on the psychometrics of LLM.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Xie et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e040f3a99c246f578b38d2https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2509.16530
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper