CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2

Have Large Language Models Developed a Personality?: Applicability of Self-Assessment Tests in Measuring Personality in LLMs

Song, Xiaoyang, Gupta, Akshat, Mohebbizadeh, Kiyan, Hu, Shujie, Singh, Anant·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.14693arXiv 2305.14693
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Have Large Language Models (LLMs) developed a personality? The short answer is a resounding "We Don't Know!". In this paper, we show that we do not yet have the right tools to measure personality in language models. Personality is an important characteristic that influences behavior. As LLMs emulate human-like intelligence and performance in various tasks, a natural question to ask is whether these models have developed a personality. Previous works have evaluated machine personality through self-assessment personality tests, which are a set of multiple-choice questions created to evaluate personality in humans. A fundamental assumption here is that human personality tests can accurately measure personality in machines. In this paper, we investigate the emergence of personality in five LLMs of different sizes ranging from 1.5B to 30B. We propose the Option-Order Symmetry property as a necessary condition for the reliability of these self-assessment tests. Under this condition, the answer to self-assessment questions is invariant to the order in which the options are presented. We find that many LLMs personality test responses do not preserve option-order symmetry. We take a deeper look at LLMs test responses where option-order symmetry is preserved to find that in these cases, LLMs do not take into account the situational statement being tested and produce the exact same answer irrespective of the situation being tested. We also identify the existence of inherent biases in these LLMs which is the root cause of the aforementioned phenomenon and makes self-assessment tests unreliable. These observations indicate that self-assessment tests are not the correct tools to measure personality in LLMs. Through this paper, we hope to draw attention to the shortcomings of current literature in measuring personality in LLMs and call for developing tools for machine personality measurement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.14693

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many language models perform unreliably in self-assessment tests and exhibit inherent biases.

    “Song et al. [180] examined the manifestation of personality in language models and discovered that many models perform unreliably in self-assessment tests and exhibit inherent biases.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [180]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. S. Black, S. Biderman, E. Hallahan, Q. Anthony, L. Gao, L. Golding, H. He, C. Leahy, K. Mc- Donell, J. Phang, et al. Gpt-neox-20b: An open-source autoregressive language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06745, 2022. · arXiv
  2. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  3. S. Bubeck, V. Chandrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Kamar, P. Lee, Y. T. Lee, Y. Li, S. Lundberg, et al. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
  4. G. Caron and S. Srivastava. Identifying and manipulating the personality traits of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10276, 2022. · arXiv
  5. H. Christian, D. Suhartono, A. Chowanda, and K. Z. Zamli. Text based personality prediction from multiple social media data sources using pre-trained language model and model averag- ing. Journal of Big Data, 8(1):1-20, 2021.
  6. J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018. · arXiv
  7. J. M. Digman. Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual review of psychology, 41(1):417-440, 1990.
  8. L. Gao, S. Biderman, S. Black, L. Golding, T. Hoppe, C. Foster, J. Phang, H. He, A. Thite, N. Nabeshima, et al. The pile: An 800gb dataset of diverse text for language modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2020. · arXiv
  9. L. R. Goldberg. An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure. Jour- nal of personality and social psychology, 59(6):1216, 1990.
  10. L. R. Goldberg. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American psychologist, 48(1):26, 1993.
  11. L. R. Goldberg et al. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality psychology in Europe, 7(1):7-28, 1999.
  12. L. R. Goldberg, J. A. Johnson, H. W. Eber, R. Hogan, M. C. Ashton, C. R. Cloninger, and H. G. Gough. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in personality, 40(1):84-96, 2006.
  13. L. R. Goldberg, J. A. Johnson, H. W. Eber, R. Hogan, M. C. Ashton, C. R. Cloninger, and H. G. Gough. The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in personality, 40(1):84-96, 2006.
  14. J. Hoffmann, S. Borgeaud, A. Mensch, E. Buchatskaya, T. Cai, E. Rutherford, D. d. L. Casas, L. A. Hendricks, J. Welbl, A. Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022. · arXiv
  15. A. Holtzman, J. Buys, L. Du, M. Forbes, and Y. Choi. The curious case of neural text degener- ation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09751, 2019. · arXiv
  16. G. Jiang, M. Xu, S.-C. Zhu, W. Han, C. Zhang, and Y. Zhu. Mpi: Evaluating and inducing personality in pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07550, 2022. · arXiv
  17. Z. Jiang, F. F. Xu, J. Araki, and G. Neubig. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:423-438, 2020.
  18. J. A. Johnson. Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the ipip-neo-120. Journal of research in personality, 51:78-89, 2014.
  19. J. A. Johnson. Measuring thirty facets of the five factor model with a 120-item public domain inventory: Development of the ipip-neo-120. Journal of research in personality, 51:78-89, 2014.
  20. B. Lester, R. Al-Rfou, and N. Constant. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08691, 2021. · arXiv
  21. X. L. Li and P. Liang. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00190, 2021. · arXiv
  22. X. Liu, K. Ji, Y. Fu, W. L. Tam, Z. Du, Z. Yang, and J. Tang. P-tuning v2: Prompt tun- ing can be comparable to fine-tuning universally across scales and tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07602, 2021. · arXiv
  23. Y. Lu, M. Bartolo, A. Moore, S. Riedel, and P. Stenetorp. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08786, 2021. · arXiv
  24. R. R. McCrae and P. T. Costa. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instru- ments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1):81, 1987.
  25. Y. Mehta, S. Fatehi, A. Kazameini, C. Stachl, E. Cambria, and S. Eetemadi. Bottom-up and top-down: Predicting personality with psycholinguistic and language model features. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 1184-1189. IEEE, 2020.
  26. L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:27730-27744, 2022.
  27. F. Petroni, T. Rocktäschel, P. Lewis, A. Bakhtin, Y. Wu, A. H. Miller, and S. Riedel. Language models as knowledge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066, 2019. · arXiv
  28. A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  29. J. W. Rae, S. Borgeaud, T. Cai, K. Millican, J. Hoffmann, F. Song, J. Aslanides, S. Henderson, R. Ring, S. Young, et al. Scaling language models: Methods, analysis & insights from training gopher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11446, 2021. · arXiv
  30. B. Rammstedt and D. Krebs. Does response scale format affect the answering of personality scales? assessing the big five dimensions of personality with different response scales in a dependent sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1):32-38, 2007.
  31. C. Robie, A. W. Meade, S. D. Risavy, and S. Rasheed. Effects of response option order on likert-type psychometric properties and reactions. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 82(6):1107-1129, 2022.
  32. J. Robinson, C. M. Rytting, and D. Wingate. Leveraging large language models for multiple choice question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12353, 2022. · arXiv
  33. T. Shin, Y. Razeghi, R. L. Logan IV, E. Wallace, and S. Singh. Autoprompt: Eliciting knowledge from language models with automatically generated prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15980, 2020. · arXiv
  34. T. Sorensen, J. Robinson, C. M. Rytting, A. G. Shaw, K. J. Rogers, A. P. Delorey, M. Khalil, N. Fulda, and D. Wingate. An information-theoretic approach to prompt engineering without ground truth labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11364, 2022. · arXiv
  35. G. M. Sullivan and A. R. Artino Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. Journal of graduate medical education, 5(4):541-542, 2013.
  36. A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polo- sukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  37. E. Wallace, S. Feng, N. Kandpal, M. Gardner, and S. Singh. Universal adversarial triggers for attacking and analyzing nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07125, 2019. · arXiv
  38. J. S. Wiggins. The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives. Guilford Press, 1996.
  39. T. Wolf, L. Debut, V. Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz, et al. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019. · arXiv
  40. S. Zhang, S. Roller, N. Goyal, M. Artetxe, M. Chen, S. Chen, C. Dewan, M. Diab, X. Li, X. V. Lin, et al. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068, 2022. · arXiv
  41. Z. Zhao, E. Wallace, S. Feng, D. Klein, and S. Singh. Calibrate before use: Improving few- shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR, 2021.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, X., Gupta, A., Mohebbizadeh, K., Hu, S., & Singh, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.14693
arXiv
2305.14693
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review