Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Humanizing LLMs: A Survey of Psychological Measurements with Tools, Datasets, and Human-Agent Applications

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 2505.00049 v1 pith:3VUQJOFW submitted 2025-04-30 cs.CY cs.CLcs.HCcs.LG

classification cs.CYcs.CLcs.HCcs.LG
keywords psychologicalllmsdatasetstoolsapplicationsassessmentevaluationllm-specific
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in human-centered tasks, assessing their psychological traits is crucial for understanding their social impact and ensuring trustworthy AI alignment. While existing reviews have covered some aspects of related research, several important areas have not been systematically discussed, including detailed discussions of diverse psychological tests, LLM-specific psychological datasets, and the applications of LLMs with psychological traits. To address this gap, we systematically review six key dimensions of applying psychological theories to LLMs: (1) assessment tools; (2) LLM-specific datasets; (3) evaluation metrics (consistency and stability); (4) empirical findings; (5) personality simulation methods; and (6) LLM-based behavior simulation. Our analysis highlights both the strengths and limitations of current methods. While some LLMs exhibit reproducible personality patterns under specific prompting schemes, significant variability remains across tasks and settings. Recognizing methodological challenges such as mismatches between psychological tools and LLMs' capabilities, as well as inconsistencies in evaluation practices, this study aims to propose future directions for developing more interpretable, robust, and generalizable psychological assessment frameworks for LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The Incomplete Bridge: How AI Research (Mis)Engages with Psychology

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A citation-based study of 1,006 LLM papers finds psychology is increasingly cited, concentrated in psychometrics and neural mechanisms, and identifies repeated misapplications of Theory of Mind.

  2. ZPD-SCA: Unveiling the Blind Spots of LLMs in Assessing Students' Cognitive Abilities

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ZPD-SCA, an expert-annotated Chinese reading benchmark, shows LLMs judge reading difficulty for student age groups poorly in zero-shot settings and improve, but remain biased, with in-context examples.

Pith tools