Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

The Power of Personality: A Human Simulation Perspective to Investigate Large Language Model Agents

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.20859 v2 pith:KZ7GKEST submitted 2025-02-28 cs.CL

The Power of Personality: A Human Simulation Perspective to Investigate Large Language Model Agents

classification cs.CL
keywords taskstraitsclosedhumanintelligencemulti-agentopenpersonality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) excel in both closed tasks (including problem-solving, and code generation) and open tasks (including creative writing), yet existing explanations for their capabilities lack connections to real-world human intelligence. To fill this gap, this paper systematically investigates LLM intelligence through the lens of ``human simulation'', addressing three core questions: (1) \textit{How do personality traits affect problem-solving in closed tasks?} (2) \textit{How do traits shape creativity in open tasks?} (3) \textit{How does single-agent performance influence multi-agent collaboration?} By assigning Big Five personality traits to LLM agents and evaluating their performance in single- and multi-agent settings, we reveal that specific traits significantly influence reasoning accuracy (closed tasks) and creative output (open tasks). Furthermore, multi-agent systems exhibit collective intelligence distinct from individual capabilities, driven by distinguishing combinations of personalities.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Agents with Feelings? Personality and Emotion in Multi-Agent Software Teams

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Personality and emotion profiles substantially change multi-agent LLM team pass rates, review scores, revision behavior, and token cost on code generation and code review, with mixed profiles often beating shared ones.

  2. When Does Personality Composition Matter for Multi-Agent LLM Teams?

    cs.AI 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Low agreeableness massively shifts multi-agent LLM communication yet barely hurts coding milestones, while the same prompt sharply degrades research milestones and collapses bargaining agreements.

  3. Multi-agent AI systems outperform human teams in creativity

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Multi-agent LLM teams outperform human teams in creativity (d=1.50) across tasks by producing more novel ideas, with distinct semantic exploration patterns predicting success for each group.

  4. The Alignment Floor: How Persona Customization Breaks Safety in Weakly-Aligned LLMs

    cs.HC 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    Sycophancy is persona-conditional: a strongly-aligned model stays within 5pp across personas while a lightly-aligned one spans 45pp, so persona safety requires per-model auditing.

  5. When Does Personality Composition Matter for Multi-Agent LLM Teams?

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Empirical study finds that personality composition in multi-agent LLM teams affects performance in a task-dependent manner, with minimal impact on coding milestones but substantial degradation in collaboration and bargaining.

  6. Imperfectly Cooperative Human-AI Interactions: Comparing the Impacts of Human and AI Attributes in Simulated and User Studies

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    In real human subjects, AI transparency impacts imperfectly cooperative interactions far more than personality traits, unlike simulations where both are comparably influential.