pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.20603 · v1 · pith:FYFLNV5Unew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 💻 cs.CY

A Survey of Large Language Models for Perception and Measurement of Human Psychology

Yudong Li , Xiaoyi Chen , Jiawei Cai , Zehao Zhong , Haoyang Yang , Huajin Tang , Linlin Shen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 16:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY
keywords large language modelspsychological measurementpersonality assessmentmental health evaluationpsychometric propertiesmeasurement paradigmstheoretical plausibility
0
0 comments X

The pith

Large language models can be used as instruments to measure human psychological constructs when organized by theoretical plausibility, measurement methods, and application results.

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

This survey examines whether large language models can accurately perceive and measure latent human traits such as personality, emotions, and cognitive states. It introduces a three-part framework to structure the existing research on this topic. The review first considers the theoretical basis for such measurement from a psychometric standpoint. It then breaks down practical approaches into conversational assessment, language analysis, and multimodal methods. Finally it evaluates outcomes in areas like personality testing and mental health screening.

Core claim

The paper establishes that research on LLMs for human psychological measurement can be systematically organized into three dimensions: Theoretical Plausibility, which addresses why such measurement might be feasible; Measurement Methodology, which covers active conversational assessment, passive natural language analysis, and multimodal fusion; and Application Effectiveness, which examines results in personality trait assessment and mental health evaluation.

What carries the argument

The three-dimensional analytical framework of Theoretical Plausibility, Measurement Methodology, and Application Effectiveness.

If this is right

  • Active conversational methods allow LLMs to interact directly with subjects for trait assessment.
  • Passive analysis of natural language can extract psychological signals from text without direct interaction.
  • Multimodal approaches combine text with other data types to improve measurement of complex states.
  • Current applications show both promise and limits in personality and mental health domains.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could guide systematic comparisons between different LLM architectures on the same psychological tasks.
  • Limitations noted in application effectiveness suggest the need for standardized validation benchmarks across studies.
  • The distinction from reviews of LLMs' own psychological properties clarifies the focus on LLMs as external measurement tools.

Load-bearing premise

Existing literature on LLM-based psychological measurement can be meaningfully categorized into the three proposed dimensions without significant overlap or omission.

What would settle it

A substantial body of new studies on LLM psychological measurement that cannot be assigned to any of the three dimensions or that requires a fourth distinct category would undermine the framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.20603 by Haoyang Yang, Huajin Tang, Jiawei Cai, Linlin Shen, Xiaoyi Chen, Yudong Li, Zehao Zhong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An overview of psychology domain-specific large language models form recent years. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of this survey. (a) Section structure. (b) Evolution of psychological measurement methods: from traditional questionnaires (pre-2020), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Against the backdrop of the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), their application in the field of psychology has garnered significant academic attention. A central issue is whether LLMs possess the capability to accurately perceive and measure complex, latent human psychological constructs, such as personality, emotions, and cognitive states. This paper provides a systematic review focused on the use of LLMs as instruments for human psychological measurement. To organize this domain, we propose a comprehensive analytical framework structured around three critical dimensions: Theoretical Plausibility (why measurement might be possible), Measurement Methodology (how to measure), and Application Effectiveness (what has been measured). We first explore the theoretical foundations supporting LLM-based measurement, examining the debate on their emergent cognitive properties from a psychometric perspective. Next, we systematically analyze existing measurement paradigms, categorizing them into active conversational assessment, passive natural language analysis, and multimodal fusion. Subsequently, we review the practical effectiveness and limitations of LLMs in core application areas, including personality trait assessment and mental health evaluation. Distinct from prior reviews focusing on general applications or the ``psychology'' of LLMs themselves, this paper centers on the psychometric properties of LLMs as measurement tools.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. This paper presents a systematic review of LLMs used as instruments to perceive and measure latent human psychological constructs (personality, emotions, cognitive states). It proposes a three-dimensional framework—Theoretical Plausibility (emergent cognitive properties from a psychometric view), Measurement Methodology (active conversational assessment, passive natural language analysis, multimodal fusion), and Application Effectiveness (personality trait assessment, mental health evaluation)—and positions the work as distinct from prior reviews on general LLM applications or the “psychology of LLMs.”

Significance. If the taxonomy proves non-redundant and the literature coverage exhaustive, the survey could usefully organize an emerging interdisciplinary area by centering psychometric validity rather than capability demonstration. The explicit scope distinction from existing reviews is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the literature can be “systematically” organized into three non-redundant dimensions is load-bearing, yet the abstract supplies no boundary definitions, overlap-handling rules, or decision criteria separating Theoretical Plausibility from Measurement Methodology despite their direct interdependence.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract / implied methods section: no literature-search protocol, database list, keyword string, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or paper-count statistics are reported, preventing evaluation of whether the reviewed corpus is exhaustive or whether the taxonomy reflects selection bias.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for these targeted comments on the abstract and the transparency of our review process. Both points identify areas where additional clarity will strengthen the manuscript, and we will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the literature can be “systematically” organized into three non-redundant dimensions is load-bearing, yet the abstract supplies no boundary definitions, overlap-handling rules, or decision criteria separating Theoretical Plausibility from Measurement Methodology despite their direct interdependence.

    Authors: We accept that the abstract must stand alone on this point. In revision we will insert concise boundary statements: Theoretical Plausibility addresses the psychometric justification for emergent LLM capabilities (e.g., alignment with trait theory or cognitive models); Measurement Methodology addresses the operational procedures (conversational prompting, text analysis, multimodal input); Application Effectiveness addresses empirical outcomes in specific domains. Papers whose primary contribution is theoretical justification are placed in the first pillar even if they also describe a method; papers whose primary contribution is a new measurement technique are placed in the second. We will add one sentence to the abstract summarizing this assignment rule and will expand the taxonomy-construction paragraph in Section 2 to make the decision criteria explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / implied methods section: no literature-search protocol, database list, keyword string, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or paper-count statistics are reported, preventing evaluation of whether the reviewed corpus is exhaustive or whether the taxonomy reflects selection bias.

    Authors: We agree that a systematic-review claim requires an explicit methods description. We will add a new subsection (provisionally 2.1) that reports: (i) databases queried (Google Scholar, arXiv, PubMed, PsycINFO, ACL Anthology), (ii) the Boolean search string combining LLM synonyms with psychological-construct terms, (iii) inclusion criteria (empirical studies that apply LLMs to measure latent constructs; peer-reviewed or preprints with clear evaluation), (iv) exclusion criteria (pure capability demonstrations without psychometric framing, non-English papers, reviews), and (v) the final corpus size and screening flow. This addition will allow readers to assess coverage and selection bias directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: survey taxonomy is organizational, not derived from self-inputs

full rationale

This is a literature survey paper with no mathematical derivations, parameter fits, or predictions. The three-dimension framework (Theoretical Plausibility, Measurement Methodology, Application Effectiveness) is explicitly presented as a proposed organizational structure for reviewing external work, not as a result derived from the paper's own data or prior self-citations. No equations, fitted inputs, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described structure. The central claim reduces to curation of existing literature rather than any self-referential reduction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular survey papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions about literature review practices and domain knowledge in psychometrics and AI, without introducing new free parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption LLMs have emergent properties that may relate to cognitive abilities
    The paper examines the debate on emergent cognitive properties from a psychometric perspective.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5755 in / 953 out tokens · 44954 ms · 2026-06-30T16:56:57.990642+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

209 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    GPT-4 Technical Report

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkatet al., “Gpt-4 technical report,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Gemini 2.0: Flash, flash-lite and pro,

    S. B. Mallick and L. Kilpatrick, “Gemini 2.0: Flash, flash-lite and pro,” February 2025, accessed: 2025-05-01. [Online]. Available: https://developers.googleblog.com/zh-hans/gemini-2-family-expands/

    2025

  3. [3]

    DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    D. Guo, D. Yang, H. Zhang, J. Song, R. Zhang, R. Xu, Q. Zhu, S. Ma, P. Wang, X. Biet al., “Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Soulchat: Improving llms’ empathy, listening, and comfort abilities through fine-tuning with multi-turn empathy conversations,

    Y . Chen, X. Xing, J. Lin, H. Zheng, Z. Wang, Q. Liu, and X. Xu, “Soulchat: Improving llms’ empathy, listening, and comfort abilities through fine-tuning with multi-turn empathy conversations,” inFind- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 2023, pp. 1170–1183

    2023

  5. [5]

    Smile: Single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support,

    H. Qiu, H. He, S. Zhang, A. Li, and Z. Lan, “Smile: Single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.00450, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Psycollm: Enhancing llm for psychological understanding and evaluation,

    J. Hu, T. Dong, L. Gang, H. Ma, P. Zou, X. Sun, D. Guo, X. Yang, and M. Wang, “Psycollm: Enhancing llm for psychological understanding and evaluation,”IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?

    E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell, “On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?” in Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 2021, pp. 610–623

    2021

  8. [9]

    Tombench: Benchmarking theory of mind in large language models,

    Z. Chen, J. Wu, J. Zhou, B. Wen, G. Bi, G. Jiang, Y . Cao, M. Hu, Y . Lai, Z. Xionget al., “Tombench: Benchmarking theory of mind in large language models,”CoRR, 2024

    2024

  9. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08399 , year=

    T. Ullman, “Large language models fail on trivial alterations to theory- of-mind tasks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08399, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [11]

    Psychometric evaluation of large language model embeddings for personality trait prediction,

    J. Maharjan, R. Jin, J. Zhu, and D. Kenne, “Psychometric evaluation of large language model embeddings for personality trait prediction,” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 27, p. e75347, 2025

    2025

  11. [12]

    Think twice: Perspective-taking improves large language models’ theory-of-mind capabilities,

    A. Wilf, S. Lee, P. P. Liang, and L.-P. Morency, “Think twice: Perspective-taking improves large language models’ theory-of-mind capabilities,” inProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2024, pp. 8292–8308

    2024

  12. [13]

    Emobench: Evaluating the emotional intelligence of large language models,

    S. Sabour, S. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Liu, J. Zhou, A. Sunaryo, T. Lee, R. Mihalcea, and M. Huang, “Emobench: Evaluating the emotional intelligence of large language models,” inProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2024, pp. 5986–6004

    2024

  13. [14]

    Mindgames: Targeting theory of mind in large language models with dynamic epistemic modal logic,

    D. Sileo and A. Lernould, “Mindgames: Targeting theory of mind in large language models with dynamic epistemic modal logic,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, 2023, pp. 4570–4577

    2023

  14. [15]

    Large language models display human-like social desirability biases in big five personality surveys,

    A. Salecha, M. E. Ireland, S. Subrahmanya, J. Sedoc, L. H. Ungar, and J. C. Eichstaedt, “Large language models display human-like social desirability biases in big five personality surveys,”PNAS nexus, vol. 3, no. 12, p. pgae533, 2024

    2024

  15. [16]

    Challenging the validity of personality tests for large language models,

    T. S ¨uhr, F. E. Dorner, S. Samadi, and A. Kelava, “Challenging the validity of personality tests for large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05297, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [17]

    Personality testing of large language models: limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosocial- ity,

    B. Bodro ˇza, B. M. Dini ´c, and L. Boji ´c, “Personality testing of large language models: limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosocial- ity,”Royal Society Open Science, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 240180, 2024

    2024

  17. [18]

    Humanizing llms: A survey of psychological measurements with tools, datasets, and human-agent applications,

    W. Dong, Y . Zhao, Z. Sun, Y . Liu, Z. Peng, J. Zheng, Z. Zhang, Z. Zhang, J. Wu, R. Wanget al., “Humanizing llms: A survey of psychological measurements with tools, datasets, and human-agent applications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00049, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [19]

    Large language model psychometrics: A systematic review of evaluation, validation, and enhancement,

    H. Ye, J. Jin, Y . Xie, X. Zhang, and G. Song, “Large language model psychometrics: A systematic review of evaluation, validation, and enhancement,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08245, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [20]

    Exploring the frontiers of llms in psychological applications: A comprehensive review,

    L. Ke, S. Tong, P. Cheng, and K. Peng, “Exploring the frontiers of llms in psychological applications: A comprehensive review,”Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 58, no. 10, p. 305, 2025

    2025

  20. [21]

    Large language models for mental health applications: systematic review,

    Z. Guo, A. Lai, J. H. Thygesen, J. Farrington, T. Keen, K. Liet al., “Large language models for mental health applications: systematic review,”JMIR mental health, vol. 11, no. 1, p. e57400, 2024

    2024

  21. [22]

    Do large language models understand us?

    B. A. y Arcas, “Do large language models understand us?”Daedalus, vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 183–197, 2022

    2022

  22. [23]

    Language models represent space and time,

    W. Gurnee and M. Tegmark, “Language models represent space and time,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02207, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [24]

    The debate over understanding in ai’s large language models,

    M. Mitchell and D. C. Krakauer, “The debate over understanding in ai’s large language models,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 120, no. 13, p. e2215907120, 2023

    2023

  24. [25]

    Climbing towards nlu: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data,

    E. M. Bender and A. Koller, “Climbing towards nlu: On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data,” inProceedings of the 58th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 2020, pp. 5185–5198

    2020

  25. [26]

    Do large language models understand logic or just mimick context?

    J. Yan, C. Wang, J. Huang, and W. Zhang, “Do large language models understand logic or just mimick context?”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12091, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [27]

    Theory of mind in large language models: Examining performance of 11 state-of-the-art models vs. children aged 7-10 on advanced tests,

    M. van Duijn, B. Van Dijk, T. Kouwenhoven, W. de Valk, M. Spruit, and P. van der Putten, “Theory of mind in large language models: Examining performance of 11 state-of-the-art models vs. children aged 7-10 on advanced tests,” inProceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), 2023, pp. 389– 402

    2023

  27. [28]

    Baron-Cohen,Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind

    S. Baron-Cohen,Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. MIT press, 1997

    1997

  28. [29]

    Theory of mind: An overview and behavioral perspective,

    H. D. Schlinger Jr, “Theory of mind: An overview and behavioral perspective,”The Psychological Record, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 435–448, 2009

    2009

  29. [30]

    Boosting theory-of-mind per- formance in large language models via prompting,

    S. R. Moghaddam and C. J. Honey, “Boosting theory-of-mind per- formance in large language models via prompting,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11490, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [31]

    Neural theory-of-mind? on the limits of social intelligence in large lms,

    M. Sap, R. Le Bras, D. Fried, and Y . Choi, “Neural theory-of-mind? on the limits of social intelligence in large lms,” inProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2022, pp. 3762–3780. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COGNITIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS 17

    2022

  31. [32]

    Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans,

    J. W. Strachan, D. Albergo, G. Borghini, O. Pansardi, E. Scaliti, S. Gupta, K. Saxena, A. Rufo, S. Panzeri, G. Manziet al., “Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans,”Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 1285–1295, 2024

    2024

  32. [33]

    Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks,

    M. Kosinski, “Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understand- ing of deception,

    H. Wimmer and J. Perner, “Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understand- ing of deception,”Cognition, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 103–128, 1983

    1983

  34. [35]

    Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind

    S. Baron-Cohen, A. M. Leslie, and U. Frith, “Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?”Cognition, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1985

    1985

  35. [36]

    Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit,

    J. Perner, S. R. Leekam, and H. Wimmer, “Three-year-olds’ difficulty with false belief: The case for a conceptual deficit,”British journal of developmental psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 125–137, 1987

    1987

  36. [37]

    Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models,

    A. Goldstein, Z. Zada, E. Buchnik, M. Schain, A. Price, B. Aubrey, S. A. Nastase, A. Feder, D. Emanuel, A. Cohenet al., “Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models,”Nature neuroscience, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 369–380, 2022

    2022

  37. [38]

    Llms achieve adult human performance on higher-order theory of mind tasks,

    W. Street, J. O. Siy, G. Keeling, A. Baranes, B. Barnett, M. McKibben, T. Kanyere, A. Lentz, R. I. Dunbaret al., “Llms achieve adult human performance on higher-order theory of mind tasks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18870, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    Position: Theory of mind benchmarks are broken for large language models,

    M. Riemer, Z. Ashktorab, D. Bouneffouf, P. Das, M. Liu, J. D. Weisz, and M. Campbell, “Position: Theory of mind benchmarks are broken for large language models,” inProceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 267. PMLR, 2025, pp. 82 091–82 130. [Online]. Available: https://procee...

    2025

  39. [40]

    Theory of mind in large language models: Assessment and enhancement,

    R. Chen, W. Jiang, C. Qin, and C. Tan, “Theory of mind in large language models: Assessment and enhancement,” inProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Vienna, Austria: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025, pp. 31 539–31 558. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/2...

    2025

  40. [41]

    Demographic variables and personality: The effects of gender, age, education, and ethnic/racial status on self-descriptions of personality attributes,

    L. R. Goldberg, D. Sweeney, P. F. Merenda, and J. E. Hughes Jr, “Demographic variables and personality: The effects of gender, age, education, and ethnic/racial status on self-descriptions of personality attributes,”Personality and Individual differences, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 393–403, 1998

    1998

  41. [42]

    Personality: A psychological interpretation

    G. W. Allport, “Personality: A psychological interpretation.” 1937

    1937

  42. [43]

    Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples,

    L. P. Argyle, E. C. Busby, N. Fulda, J. R. Gubler, C. Rytting, and D. Wingate, “Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples,”Political Analysis, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 337–351, 2023

    2023

  43. [44]

    Evaluating the ability of large language models to emulate personality,

    Y . Wang, J. Zhao, D. S. Ones, L. He, and X. Xu, “Evaluating the ability of large language models to emulate personality,”Scientific reports, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 519, 2025

    2025

  44. [45]

    Effects of language-and culture- specific prompting on chatgpt,

    M. Tuna, K. Schaaff, and T. Schlippe, “Effects of language-and culture- specific prompting on chatgpt,” in2024 2nd International Conference on Foundation and Large Language Models (FLLM). IEEE, 2024, pp. 73–81

    2024

  45. [46]

    Large language models as superpositions of cultural perspectives,

    G. Kova ˇc, M. Sawayama, R. Portelas, C. Colas, P. F. Dominey, and P.-Y . Oudeyer, “Large language models as superpositions of cultural perspectives,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.07870, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [47]

    Patient-{\Psi}: Using large language models to simulate patients for training mental health professionals,

    R. Wang, S. Milani, J. C. Chiu, J. Zhi, S. M. Eack, T. Labrum, S. M. Murphy, N. Jones, K. Hardy, H. Shenet al., “Patient-{\Psi}: Using large language models to simulate patients for training mental health professionals,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19660, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    The mixed subjects design: Treating large language models as potentially informative observa- tions,

    D. Broska, M. Howes, and A. van Loon, “The mixed subjects design: Treating large language models as potentially informative observa- tions,”Sociological Methods & Research, p. 00491241251326865, 2025

    2025

  48. [49]

    Llms simulate big five personality traits: Further ev- idence,

    A. Sorokovikova, N. Fedorova, S. Rezagholi, T. Wien, and I. P. Yamshchikov, “Llms simulate big five personality traits: Further ev- idence,” inThe 1st Workshop on Personalization of Generative AI Systems, 2024, p. 83

    2024

  49. [50]

    Large language models show amplified cognitive biases in moral decision-making,

    V . Cheung, M. Maier, and F. Lieder, “Large language models show amplified cognitive biases in moral decision-making,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 122, no. 25, p. e2412015122, 2025

    2025

  50. [51]

    Knowledge of cultural moral norms in large language models,

    A. Ramezani and Y . Xu, “Knowledge of cultural moral norms in large language models,” inProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2023, pp. 428–446

    2023

  51. [52]

    Simulating diverse patient popu- lations using patient vignettes and large language models,

    D. Reichenpfader and K. Denecke, “Simulating diverse patient popu- lations using patient vignettes and large language models,” inProceed- ings of the First Workshop on Patient-Oriented Language Processing (CL4Health)@ LREC-COLING 2024, 2024, pp. 20–25

    2024

  52. [53]

    Virtual personas for language models via an anthology of backstories,

    S. Moon, M. Abdulhai, M. Kang, J. Suh, W. Soedarmadji, E. Behar, and D. Chan, “Virtual personas for language models via an anthology of backstories,” inProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024, pp. 19 864–19 897

    2024

  53. [54]

    Database report: Twin-2k-500: A data set for building digital twins of over 2,000 people based on their answers to over 500 questions,

    O. Toubia, G. Z. Gui, T. Peng, D. J. Merlau, A. Li, and H. Chen, “Database report: Twin-2k-500: A data set for building digital twins of over 2,000 people based on their answers to over 500 questions,” Marketing Science, 2025

    2025

  54. [55]

    PsyCoT: Psychological questionnaire as powerful chain-of-thought for personality detection,

    T. Yang, T. Shi, F. Wan, X. Quan, Q. Wang, B. Wu, and J. Wu, “PsyCoT: Psychological questionnaire as powerful chain-of-thought for personality detection,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. Singapore: Association for Computational Linguistics, Dec. 2023, pp. 3305–3320. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/202...

    2023

  55. [56]

    Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference

    J. W. Pennebaker and L. A. King, “Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference.”Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 77, no. 6, p. 1296, 1999

    1999

  56. [57]

    Chain of empathy: Enhancing empathetic response of large language models based on psychotherapy models,

    Y . K. Lee, I. Lee, M. Shin, S. Bae, and S. Hahn, “Chain of empathy: Enhancing empathetic response of large language models based on psychotherapy models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04915, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    A computational approach to understanding empathy expressed in text-based mental health support,

    A. Sharma, A. S. Miner, D. C. Atkins, and T. Althoff, “A computational approach to understanding empathy expressed in text-based mental health support,” inEMNLP, 2020

    2020

  58. [59]

    Thinking assistants: Llm-based conversa- tional assistants that help users think by asking rather than answering,

    S. Park and C. Kulkarni, “Thinking assistants: Llm-based conversa- tional assistants that help users think by asking rather than answering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.06024, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [60]

    Wundtgpt: Shaping large language models to be an empathetic, proactive psychologist,

    C. Ren, Y . Zhang, D. He, and J. Qin, “Wundtgpt: Shaping large language models to be an empathetic, proactive psychologist,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15474, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [61]

    Psyqa: A chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support,

    H. Sun, Z. Lin, C. Zheng, S. Liu, and M. Huang, “Psyqa: A chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support,” inFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2021, 2021

    2021

  61. [62]

    Large language models can infer personality from free-form user interactions,

    H. Peters, M. Cerf, and S. C. Matz, “Large language models can infer personality from free-form user interactions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13052, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [63]

    Affective-nli: Towards accurate and interpretable personality recognition in conversation,

    Z. Wen, J. Cao, Y . Yang, R. Yang, and S. Liu, “Affective-nli: Towards accurate and interpretable personality recognition in conversation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom). IEEE, 2024, pp. 184–193

    2024

  63. [64]

    Cped: A large-scale chinese personalized and emotional dia- logue dataset for conversational ai,

    Y . Chen, W. Fan, X. Xing, J. Pang, M. Huang, W. Han, Q. Tie, and X. Xu, “Cped: A large-scale chinese personalized and emotional dia- logue dataset for conversational ai,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14727, 2022

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [65]

    Psychat: A client-centric dialogue system for mental health support,

    H. Qiu, A. Li, L. Ma, and Z. Lan, “Psychat: A client-centric dialogue system for mental health support,” in2024 27th International Confer- ence on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2979–2984

    2024

  65. [66]

    Llm-based conversational ai therapist for daily functioning screening and psychotherapeutic intervention via everyday smart devices,

    J. Nie, H. Shao, Y . Fan, Q. Shao, H. You, M. Preindl, and X. Jiang, “Llm-based conversational ai therapist for daily functioning screening and psychotherapeutic intervention via everyday smart devices,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10779, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  66. [67]

    Beyond empathy: Integrating diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning with large language models for mental health counseling,

    H. Hu, Y . Zhou, J. Si, Q. Wang, H. Zhang, F. Ren, F. Ma, and L. Cui, “Beyond empathy: Integrating diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning with large language models for mental health counseling,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15715, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    Eliciting human preferences with language models,

    B. Li, A. Tamkin, N. Goodman, and J. Andreas, “Eliciting human preferences with language models,” inInternational Conference on Representation Learning, Y . Yue, A. Garg, N. Peng, F. Sha, and R. Yu, Eds., vol. 2025, 2025, pp. 80 984–81 013. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper files/paper/2025/ file/c9867d5a22653ce98b02595061e40f12-Paper...

    2025

  68. [69]

    Modeling future conversation turns to teach LLMs to ask clarifying questions,

    M. J. Zhang, W. B. Knox, and E. Choi, “Modeling future conversation turns to teach LLMs to ask clarifying questions,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=cwuSAR7EKd

    2025

  69. [70]

    AmbigQA: Answering ambiguous open-domain questions,

    S. Min, J. Michael, H. Hajishirzi, and L. Zettlemoyer, “AmbigQA: Answering ambiguous open-domain questions,” inEMNLP, 2020

    2020

  70. [71]

    Can chatgpt assess hu- man personalities? a general evaluation framework,

    H. Rao, C. Leung, and C. Miao, “Can chatgpt assess hu- man personalities? a general evaluation framework,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01248, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  71. [72]

    Gpt is an effective tool for multilingual psycholog- ical text analysis,

    S. Rathje, D.-M. Mirea, I. Sucholutsky, R. Marjieh, C. E. Robertson, and J. J. Van Bavel, “Gpt is an effective tool for multilingual psycholog- ical text analysis,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 121, no. 34, p. e2308950121, 2024. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COGNITIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL SYSTEMS 18

    2024

  72. [73]

    From text to emotion: Unveiling the emotion annotation capabilities of llms,

    M. Niu, M. Jaiswal, and E. M. Provost, “From text to emotion: Unveiling the emotion annotation capabilities of llms,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.17026, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [74]

    EmoBank: Studying the impact of annotation perspective and representation format on dimensional emotion analysis,

    S. Buechel and U. Hahn, “EmoBank: Studying the impact of annotation perspective and representation format on dimensional emotion analysis,” inProceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, M. Lapata, P. Blunsom, and A. Koller, Eds. Valencia, Spain: Association for Comput...

    2017

  74. [75]

    Mental-llm: Leveraging large language mod- els for mental health prediction via online text data,

    X. Xu, B. Yao, Y . Dong, S. Gabriel, H. Yu, J. Hendler, M. Ghassemi, A. K. Dey, and D. Wang, “Mental-llm: Leveraging large language mod- els for mental health prediction via online text data,”Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–32, 2024

    2024

  75. [76]

    Dreaddit: A reddit dataset for stress analysis in social media,

    E. Turcan and K. McKeown, “Dreaddit: A reddit dataset for stress analysis in social media,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00133, 2019

    work page arXiv 1911

  76. [77]

    Llm vs small model? large language model based text augmentation enhanced personality detection model,

    L. Hu, H. He, D. Wang, Z. Zhao, Y . Shao, and L. Nie, “Llm vs small model? large language model based text augmentation enhanced personality detection model,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 16, 2024, pp. 18 234–18 242

    2024

  77. [78]

    From post to personality: Harnessing llms for mbti prediction in social media,

    T. Ma, K. Feng, Y . Rong, and K. Zhao, “From post to personality: Harnessing llms for mbti prediction in social media,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04461, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [79]

    MBTI Type Dataset,

    datasnaek, “MBTI Type Dataset,” https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ datasnaek/mbti-type/data, 2017, accessed: 2025-10-15

    2017

  79. [80]

    Enhancing depression detection with chain-of-thought prompting: From emotion to reasoning using large language models,

    S. Teng, J. Liu, R. K. Jain, S. Chai, R. Hou, T. Tateyama, L. Lin, and Y .-w. Chen, “Enhancing depression detection with chain-of-thought prompting: From emotion to reasoning using large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05879, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    Avec 2019 workshop and challenge: state-of-mind, detecting depression with ai, and cross-cultural affect recognition,

    F. Ringeval, B. Schuller, M. Valstar, N. Cummins, R. Cowie, L. Tavabi, M. Schmitt, S. Alisamir, S. Amiriparian, E.-M. Messneret al., “Avec 2019 workshop and challenge: state-of-mind, detecting depression with ai, and cross-cultural affect recognition,” inProceedings of the 9th International on Audio/visual Emotion Challenge and Workshop, 2019, pp. 3–12

    2019

Showing first 80 references.