Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Psychologically Enhanced AI Agents

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Prompt-based MBTI priming steers LLM agents along affective and cognitive axes, and self-reflection before communication improves cooperation and reasoning quality.

desk verdict A plausible prompt-engineering study whose narrative-effectiveness claim rests on an unvalidated LLM judge and whose trait persistence check is circular; the game-theoretic results are more credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04343 v1 pith:FEU2FJBS submitted 2025-09-04 cs.AI cs.CLcs.CYcs.HCcs.MA

Maciej Besta , Shriram Chandran , Robert Gerstenberger , Mathis Lindner , Marcin Chrapek , Sebastian Hermann Martschat , Taraneh Ghandi , Patrick Iff
show 4 more authors
Hubert Niewiadomski Piotr Nyczyk Jürgen Müller Torsten Hoefler
This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.CYcs.HCcs.MA
keywords MBTIpersonalitypriminglargelanguagemodelspromptengineeringaffective-cognitiveaxesmulti-agentcommunicationLLM-as-a-judgegametheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to show that a language model's behavior can be steered along two psychological axes—affect and cognition—simply by priming it with a personality profile in the prompt, with no fine-tuning. It introduces MBTI-in-Thoughts, which assigns each agent one of the 16 Myers–Briggs types, verifies the assignment with the 16Personalities test, and then measures behavior on narrative writing and strategic games. The reported effects are consistent and interpretable: Feeling types produce more emotionally expressive stories, Thinking types defect more often and switch strategies less, and Introverted or Judging types are more honest in communication. A separate result shows that letting agents reflect privately before exchanging messages improves cooperation and reasoning in multi-agent tasks. If these findings hold, personality prompts become a cheap, reversible dial for matching agent behavior to task demands.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the personality prompt: a role-setting context that tells the agent it has a given MBTI type, either naming the type explicitly or describing its traits without the label. The paper couples this with the official 16Personalities questionnaire as an external verification instrument, treating each MBTI dichotomy as a continuous [0,1] pair rather than a binary switch. For multi-agent settings, the framework defines three communication protocols: independent majority voting, interactive blackboard dialogue, and interactive dialogue preceded by a private self-reflection scratchpad. The protocols are what let the paper isolate the effect of personality priming on group r

What would settle it

Have independent human raters score the 100 generated stories for believability and emotional tone without knowing which personality prompt produced them, and check whether Feeling-primed stories still outscore Thinking-primed and unprimed ones; if the gap vanishes, the affective advantage is an artifact of the judging model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a psychological profile injected through prompt text is enough to give an LLM agent a stable, task-relevant behavioral orientation. Across 16 MBTI profiles the paper shows reproducible separability on three of the four MBTI axes when agents take the official 16Personalities test, with Sensing/Intuition weaker. In narrative generation, Feeling-primed agents score higher on emotionally charged, personal, optimistic attributes than Thinking-primed agents or unprimed controls. In repeated Prisoner's Dilemma and related games, Thinking-primed agents defect in roughly 90% of rounds versus about 50% for Feeling-primed agents, and Thinking types switch strategies half as of

Load-bearing premise

The central results depend on the LLM-as-judge scores for narrative attributes and the game-play metrics (defection, switching, honesty) being valid measures of what they claim to measure, rather than reflections of the prompt's surface style.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MBTI type becomes a zero-retraining design knob: choose a Feeling profile for emotional-support or narrative applications and a Thinking profile for competitive, payoff-maximizing ones.
  • Private self-reflection before agent communication can be adopted as a protocol default, since it improves cooperation and reasoning quality while preserving epistemic independence.
  • Introverted and Judging profiles can be selected when truthful, trust-preserving communication is required, such as negotiation or safety-critical coordination.
  • The same prompt infrastructure can expose Big Five, HEXACO, Enneagram, or DISC dimensions, so users are not locked into MBTI.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would expect the Sensing/Intuition axis to become more visible in tasks with explicit information-gathering choices, such as deciding whether to seek concrete evidence versus explore abstract hypotheses, rather than in single-turn text scoring.
  • The reported honesty rates are about matching an announced action; varying the payoff for lying in the same games would reveal whether introverted/judging agents are truly more honest or simply more instruction-following.
  • Because priming lives entirely in the prompt, the same agent could switch personality profiles between rounds or tasks, giving a cheap route to adaptive multi-agent behavior without retraining.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MBTI-in-Thoughts (MiT), a framework that conditions LLM agents on MBTI personality profiles via prompt engineering. The authors claim that such priming induces consistent behavioral biases: Feeling-primed agents produce more emotionally expressive narratives, Thinking-primed agents adopt more stable strategies in game-theoretic settings, Introverts and Judging types are more honest, and self-reflection before communication improves cooperative outcomes and reasoning. They integrate the 16Personalities test for automated verification of trait persistence and propose a formal mapping to other psychological frameworks (Big Five, HEXACO, Enneagram, DISC) to support generalization. The evaluation uses multiple LLMs and compares against NONE and EXPERT baselines across narrative generation, multi-agent communication protocols, and several two-player games.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would make a useful practical contribution: lightweight, fine-tuning-free control of LLM behavior along affective and cognitive axes, with potential applications in narrative generation, negotiation, and multi-agent coordination. The release of code is a concrete strength, as is the use of objective behavioral metrics (defection rates, strategy-switch rates, honesty rates) in Section 4.3. However, the effectiveness claims rest on two fragile pillars: a verification procedure that leaks the intended answer through exemplars, and an unvalidated LLM-as-a-judge evaluation for the narrative results. The generalization-to-other-frameworks claim is only supported by a formal restatement, not by experiments. These issues are substantial enough that the paper's headline conclusions are not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, Appendix C.1] The 16Personalities verification is circular. The verification prompt explicitly includes four few-shot exemplars aligned with the target type's stance on each axis (e.g., 'As an introverted personality...' for E/I, 'As a feeling personality...' for T/F). This tells the model exactly how to answer, so the separability in Figure 2 merely shows the model can follow the exemplars, not that priming induces persistent traits. The 'robustness' claim in Section 4.1 is therefore not supported by an independent test. Please redesign the verification without answer-revealing exemplars, or clearly label the current result as a prompt-following check rather than a personality verification.
  2. [Section 4.2, Appendix C.3] The narrative-generation claim that 'Feeling types excel' rests entirely on LLM-as-a-judge scores from PersonaLLM metrics. No human validation, inter-annotator agreement, judge model, or confidence intervals are reported. Moreover, the generation template in Appendix C.3 forces each output to include a 'relation to personality' field beginning with 'I am a(n) [personality type]' and a 'reasoning related to personality' field. If the judge sees these fields, the type label is directly visible; if not, no masking procedure is described. Thus the reported T/F differences may reflect surface style or even the condition label, not reader-valued narrative quality. Human evaluation of a masked subset is necessary to support the 'excel' claim.
  3. [Section 4.3, Figure 4] The key behavioral comparisons are presented without any statistical support. The text states that Thinking types defect in 'roughly 90%' of rounds versus '≈50%' for Feeling types, and that Introverts have 'significantly higher' honesty rates, but no test statistic, p-value, standard error, number of games, or number of runs is given. Figure 4 shows only point estimates without error bars. Since these objective metrics are the strongest evidence for behavioral divergence, the authors should report variance across repeated runs and perform appropriate significance tests (e.g., bootstrap or mixed-effects models).
  4. [Section 4, 'Evaluation & Use Cases'] The paper states: 'we present representative results and omit data that does not yield relevant insights.' This selective reporting makes it impossible to assess whether the omitted data contradict the central claims. The criteria for 'relevant insights' are undefined, and no appendix or supplementary provides the full results. To allow independent verification, all experimental outcomes should be released (at least in a supplementary file), and the selection process should be described transparently.
  5. [Section 3.3, Appendix B] The claim that the framework 'generalizes seamlessly' to Big Five, HEXACO, Enneagram, and DISC is unsupported by any experiments. The formal mapping in Appendix B simply defines each framework as a function F: Agent -> R^n and re-describes existing trait models; it does not demonstrate that the prompt-conditioning method works for those frameworks. No Big Five, HEXACO, Enneagram, or DISC agents were instantiated or evaluated. This is a contribution listed in the abstract and introduction, so it needs either empirical validation or a clear rephrasing as a theoretical framing rather than a demonstrated capability.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2] The sentence '...providing a detailed plan...' ends with an incomplete fragment: 'Neuroticism, providing.' Should be 'providing...' or restructured.
  2. [Section 4.2] The dataset name 'W RITING PROMPTS' contains a stray space; also 'PersonaLLM' is cited but the exact metric names and versions are not defined in the text.
  3. [Section 4.1] 'more performance on various cognitive and affective tasks' should be 'better performance' or 'higher performance'.
  4. [Section 4.3] 'which is a statistically significant' is grammatically incomplete; should be 'which is statistically significant' and be backed by the missing test details noted in the major comments.
  5. [Appendix C.2] In the ESTP example, the phrase 'you are an known for' appears to be a typo; should read 'you are known for'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Trait-persistence verification is self-fulfilling because the 16Personalities test prompt injects target-aligned exemplars; the objective game metrics remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 (Verification); Appendix C.1; Section 4.1]
    "The prompter asks the question by injecting four specific exemplars aligned with the target type’s stance on each axis and enforces <Rating> tags around the final choice, enabling deterministic parsing. ... Here are some examples first: ... Statement: I really enjoy impromptu get-togethers with a large group of friends... Answer: As an introverted personality, I prefer quiet, planned settings... <Rating>Generally Disagree</Rating>"

    The 16Personalities verification is presented as an independent check that priming induces the assigned MBTI profile (Section 4.1: 'MBTI-in-Thoughts ensures that priming with a given psychological profile is effective'). But the test prompt itself contains few-shot exemplars that already express the target type's stance on each axis. An LLM performing in-context learning will follow these exemplars, so the resulting dichotomy scores in Figure 2 are substantially entailed by the test prompt rather than by the priming context alone. The 'persistence check' and the priming input share the same content, making the verification self-fulfilling by construction.

full rationale

The paper's objective game-theoretic measurements (Section 4.3) are independent and not circular: defection rates, strategy-switch rates, and honesty rates are computed from recorded actions, not from the priming prompt. These results stand as evidence that prompt-level personality conditioning changes behavior. The main circularity is in the trait-persistence verification. Section 3.1 states that the 16Personalities prompter 'injects four specific exemplars aligned with the target type's stance on each axis' into the test. Consequently, the separability shown in Figure 2 is substantially a few-shot instruction-following effect; the 'official test' is not acting as an independent probe because the exemplars already provide the target answers. This undercuts Contribution 4 but does not by itself make the game results circular. The narrative-generation claim (Section 4.2) is more fragile: it relies entirely on LLM-as-a-judge scores, with no reported human validation, judge model, or masking of the required personality self-reference fields in the output JSON (Appendix C.3). That is a validity threat rather than a demonstrated circular reduction, so it is not counted as a separate circular step. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; citations to the authors' prior work are contextual. Overall score 5: one core validation step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new entities or fitted numeric models; its load-bearing assumptions are the validity of MBTI-based trait mapping, the independence of the personality verification, and the validity of LLM-based evaluation.

free parameters (1)
  • Per-type priming prompt text (16 MBTI profiles)
    The detailed personality descriptions in Appendix C.2 are hand-authored and results depend on this exact wording; only three prompt styles were compared, and no search over prompt variants is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MBTI dichotomies can be reinterpreted as continuous trait axes that map onto cognitive and affective dimensions.
    Section 2.3 and Appendix B; this is the basis for generalization beyond MBTI, but MBTI's scientific validity is disputed and the mapping is not empirically established.
  • domain assumption The 16Personalities test, completed by an LLM under the influence of the priming prompt, provides an independent measure of the induced personality.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix C.1; the test prompt includes few-shot exemplars aligned with the target type, so the measure is not independent.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge ratings for narrative quality are valid and unbiased.
    Section 4.2; no human validation or inter-rater agreement is reported.
  • domain assumption The selected tasks are representative of affective and cognitive performance and are sensitive to personality variation.
    Section 4, task selection; the paper notes BIG-Bench tasks showed minimal variation, so task choice is a load-bearing modeling decision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Psychologically Enhanced AI Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FEU2FJBS

@misc{pith2026250904343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Psychologically Enhanced AI Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FEU2FJBS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04343}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce MBTI-in-Thoughts, a framework for enhancing the effectiveness of Large Language Model (LLM) agents through psychologically grounded personality conditioning. Drawing on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), our method primes agents with distinct personality archetypes via prompt engineering, enabling control over behavior along two foundational axes of human psychology, cognition and affect. We show that such personality priming yields consistent, interpretable behavioral biases across diverse tasks: emotionally expressive agents excel in narrative generation, while analytically primed agents adopt more stable strategies in game-theoretic settings. Our framework supports experimenting with structured multi-agent communication protocols and reveals that self-reflection prior to interaction improves cooperation and reasoning quality. To ensure trait persistence, we integrate the official 16Personalities test for automated verification. While our focus is on MBTI, we show that our approach generalizes seamlessly to other psychological frameworks such as Big Five, HEXACO, or Enneagram. By bridging psychological theory and LLM behavior design, we establish a foundation for psychologically enhanced AI agents without any fine-tuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the MBTI-in-Thoughts framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Section 4.1) Robustness of priming individual agents with psychological MBTI profiles. Model: GPT-4o mini (tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Sections 4.2–4.3) Average attribute scores of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Section 4.3) Analysis of the influence of psychological MBTI features on strategic interactions in game theory on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Section 4.3) Example agent communication rounds from the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analysis of inter-agent communication protocols. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Illustration of the robustness of priming individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Honesty rates across several different games. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SimViews: An Interactive Multi-Agent System Simulating Visitor-to-Visitor Conversational Patterns to Present Diverse Perspectives of Artifacts in Virtual Museums

    cs.HC 2025-08 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The body text belongs to a different paper (Chimera), so the abstract's SimViews claims and its 20-participant study are unsupported in the submitted text.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [4]

    In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , 2370–2386

    Manipulating the Per- ceived Personality Traits of Language Models. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , 2370–2386. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics. Chen, J.; Liu, Z.; Huang, X.; Wu, C.; Liu, Q.; Jiang, G.; Pu, Y .; Lei, Y .; Chen, X.; Wang, X.; Zheng, K....

    work page 2023

  2. [6]

    arXiv:2304.11111

    Inducing Anxiety in Large Language Models Increases Exploration and Bias. arXiv:2304.11111. Cui, J.; Lv, L.; Wen, J.; Wang, R.; Tang, J.; Tian, Y .; and Yuan, L

    arXiv

  3. [7]

    arXiv:2312.12999

    Machine Mindset: An MBTI Exploration of Large Language Models. arXiv:2312.12999. Dorner, F.; S¨uhr, T.; Samadi, S.; and Kelava, A

    arXiv

  4. [8]

    arXiv:2303.13988

    Machine Psychology. arXiv:2303.13988. Hu, J.; Dong, T.; Gang, L.; Ma, H.; Zou, P.; Sun, X.; Guo, D.; Yang, X.; and Wang, M

    arXiv

  5. [10]

    The GPT-WritingPrompts Dataset: A Comparative Analysis of Character Portrayal in Short Stories

    The GPT-WritingPrompts Dataset: A Comparative Analysis of Character Portrayal in Short Stories. arXiv:2406.16767. Jiang, G.; Xu, M.; Zhu, S.-C.; Han, W.; Zhang, C.; and Zhu, Y

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [11]

    In Duh, K.; Gomez, H.; and Bethard, S., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 , 3605–3627

    PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traits. In Duh, K.; Gomez, H.; and Bethard, S., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 , 3605–3627. Mexico City, Mexico: Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. Jin, C.; Zhang, S.; Shu, T.; and Cui, Z

    work page 2024

  7. [12]

    The Cultural Psychology of Large Language Models: Is ChatGPT a Holistic or Analytic Thinker?

    The Cul- tural Psychology of Large Language Models: Is ChatGPT a Holistic or Analytic Thinker? arXiv:2308.14242. Kaddour, J.; Harris, J.; Mozes, M.; Bradley, H.; Raileanu, R.; and McHardy, R

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [13]

    arXiv:2307.10169

    Challenges and Applications of Large Language Models. arXiv:2307.10169. Lee, K.; and Ashton, M. C

    arXiv

Show all 32 references
  1. [14]

    arXiv:2307.11760

    Large Language Models Understand and Can Be Enhanced by Emotional Stimuli. arXiv:2307.11760. Liu, P.; Yuan, W.; Fu, J.; Jiang, Z.; Hayashi, H.; and Neubig, G

    arXiv

  2. [16]

    arXiv:2308.07326

    AI Text-to-Behavior: A Study in Steerability. arXiv:2308.07326. Ou, J.; Lu, J.; Liu, C.; Tang, Y .; Zhang, F.; Zhang, D.; and Gai, K

    arXiv

  3. [17]

    DialogBench: Evaluating LLMs as Human- Like Dialogue Systems. In Duh, K.; Gomez, H.; and Bethard, S., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) ...

    2024

  4. [18]

    arXiv:2307.16180

    Do LLMs Possess a Personality? Making the MBTI Test an Amazing Evaluation for Large Language Models. arXiv:2307.16180. Patel, S. C.; and Fan, J

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    bioRxiv:2023.07.17.549421

    Identification and De- scription of Emotions by Current Large Language Models. bioRxiv:2023.07.17.549421. Pellert, M.; Lechner, C. M.; Wagner, C.; Rammstedt, B.; and Strohmaier, M

    2023

  6. [21]

    arXiv:2307.00184

    Personality Traits in Large Language Models. arXiv:2307.00184. Srivastava, A.; Rastogi, A.; Rao, A.; Shoeb, A. A. M.; Abid, A.; Fisch, A.; Brown, A. R.; Santoro, A.; Gupta, A.; Garriga- Alonso, A.; et al

    arXiv

  7. [22]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, 1039:1–1039:19

    Bridging the Gulf of Envisioning: Cogni- tive Challenges in Prompt Based Interactions with LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, 1039:1–1039:19. Honolulu, HI, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300...

    2024

  8. [23]

    arXiv:2308.10278

    CharacterChat: Learning to- wards Conversational AI with Personalized Social Support. arXiv:2308.10278. V . Ganesan, A.; Lal, Y . K.; Nilsson, A.; and Schwartz, H

    arXiv

  9. [24]

    InProceedings of the Many Facets of Preference-Based Learning Workshop at ICML ’23

    Prefer- ence Proxies: Evaluating Large Language Models in Captur- ing Human Preferences in Human-AI Tasks. InProceedings of the Many Facets of Preference-Based Learning Workshop at ICML ’23. Honolulu, HI, USA: OpenReview. Wang, D.; Yang, K.; Zhu, H.; Yang, X.; Cohen, A.; Li, L...

    2024

  10. [25]

    V .; Chi, E

    Wang, X.; Wei, J.; Schuurmans, D.; Le, Q. V .; Chi, E. H.; Narang, S.; Chowdhery, A.; and Zhou, D. 2023b. Self- Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Lan- guage Models. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR ’23. ...

    2024

  11. [26]

    In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’22, 359:1–359:10

    PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programming. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’22, 359:1–359:10. New Orleans, LA, USA: Association for Computing Ma- chinery. ISBN 9781450391566. X...

    2022

  12. [27]

    arXiv:2505.12692

    Bullying the Machine: How Personas Increase LLM Vulnerability. arXiv:2505.12692. Yang, A.; Li, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Gao, C.; Huang, C.; Lv, C.; et al

    arXiv

  13. [28]

    arXiv:2505.09388

    Qwen3 Technical Report. arXiv:2505.09388. Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Zhou, C.; Li, C.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; et al

    arXiv

  14. [29]

    arXiv:2407.10671

    Qwen2 Technical Report. arXiv:2407.10671. Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; and Cao, Y

    arXiv

  15. [30]

    In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’23, 437:1–437:21

    Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts. In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI ’23, 437:1–437:21. Hamburg, Germany: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394215. Zhang, Z.; Ba...

    2023

  16. [31]

    arXiv:2310.00378

    Val- ueDCG: Measuring Comprehensive Human Value Under- standing Ability of Language Models. arXiv:2310.00378. Zhao, Q.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y .; Jin, Y .; Zhu, K.; Chen, H.; and Xie, X

    arXiv

  17. [32]

    In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , 10262– 10274

    RealBehav- ior: A Framework for Faithfully Characterizing Foundation Models’ Human-Like Behavior Mechanisms. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , 10262– 10274. Singapore: Association for Computa...

    2023

  18. [1944]

    Myers, I

    Briggs Myers Type Indicator Handbook. Myers, I. B.; and Myers, P. B. 1980.Gifts Differing: Under- standing Personality Type. Davies-Black Publishing. ISBN 0-89106-074-X. Noever, D.; and Hyams, S

    1980

  19. [1991]

    Personnel Psychology, 44(1): 1–26

    The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta- Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1): 1–26. Besta, M.; Barth, J.; Schreiber, E.; Kubicek, A.; Catarino, A.; Gerstenberger, R.; Nyczyk, P.; Iff, P.; Li, Y .; Houliston, S.; Sternal, M., Tomasz Copik; Kwa ´sniewsk...

    arXiv

  20. [2021]

    In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’21, 314:1–314:7

    Prompt Program- ming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’21, 314:1–314:7. Yokohama, Japan: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450380959. Salecha, A...

    2021

  21. [2022]

    In Rieck, B.; and Pascanu, R., eds., Proceed- ings of the First Learning on Graphs Conference (LoG ’22), volume 198 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 31:1–31:38

    Neural Graph Databases. In Rieck, B.; and Pascanu, R., eds., Proceed- ings of the First Learning on Graphs Conference (LoG ’22), volume 198 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 31:1–31:38. Virtual Event: PMLR. Besta, M.; Kubicek, A.; Gerstenberger, R.; Chrapek, M.; Nig...

  22. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the AAAI 2023 Workshop on Representation Learning for Responsible Human-Centric AI, R2HCAI ’23

    Moral Foundations of Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2023 Workshop on Representation Learning for Responsible Human-Centric AI, R2HCAI ’23. Washington, DC, USA: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Abramski, K.; Citraro, S.; Lombardi, L...

    2023

  23. [2024]

    World Wide Web, 27(4): 42:1–42:45

    When Large Language Models Meet Per- sonalization: Perspectives of Challenges and Opportunities. World Wide Web, 27(4): 42:1–42:45. Clarke, P. 2004.Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge. ISBN 9780203484333. Coda-Forno, J.; Witte, K.; Jagadish, A. K.; Binz, M.; Aka...

    2004

  24. [2025]

    IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 12(2): 539–551

    PsycoLLM: Enhanc- ing LLM for Psychological Understanding and Evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 12(2): 539–551. Huang, J.-t.; Jiao, W.; Lam, M. H.; Li, E. J.; Wang, W.; and Lyu, M. 2024a. On the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.