Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models

Summary

arXiv:2609.15998v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every large language model (LLM) has behavioral traits and moral preferences that comprise its character. Whether by design or as an emergent property of training, these systems exhibit persistent dispositions that shape how they interact, comply, resist, and err, yet the structure of LLM character remains poorly understood. We map the self-reported personality archetypes of 22 LLMs spanning closed-source frontier systems (GPT-4.0-5.2, Grok-3/4, Gemini 2.5 Pro/Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5/4.6) and open-source models (Llama, DeepSeek, OLMo, and Qwen series). Each model self-rated across 464 bipolar semantic-differential trait pairs, and the resulting profiles were projected into a six-dimensional archetypal space derived from crowd-sourced rating…

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Tabia Tanzin Prama, Calla Glavin Beauregard, Christopher M. Danforth, Peter Sheridan Dodds
Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 9 Jul 2026]

Title:Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models

View a PDF of the paper titled Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models, by Tabia Tanzin Prama and 3 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Every large language model (LLM) has behavioral traits and moral preferences that comprise its character. Whether by design or as an emergent property of training, these systems exhibit persistent dispositions that shape how they interact, comply, resist, and err, yet the structure of LLM character remains poorly understood. We map the self-reported personality archetypes of 22 LLMs spanning closed-source frontier systems (GPT-4.0-5.2, Grok-3/4, Gemini 2.5 Pro/Flash, Claude Sonnet 4.5/4.6) and open-source models (Llama, DeepSeek, OLMo, and Qwen series). Each model self-rated across 464 bipolar semantic-differential trait pairs, and the resulting profiles were projected into a six-dimensional archetypal space derived from crowd-sourced ratings of 2,000 fictional characters using the Archetypometrics framework. Closed-source models' self-rating traits align with the empirical trait co-occurrence structure of human-rated fictional characters, suggesting coherent, human-like self-representations organized around combinations of four recurring archetypal dimensions: Hero, Angel, Traditionalist, and Geek. Their closest analogues include Data, Vision, and Janet. Open-source models show weaker, noisier, and internally contradictory self-representations, occupying a diffuse region of archetype space with weak structure. Cross-referencing self-reported profiles with developer constitutions reveals a consequential gap between claimed character and enacted behavior: hallucination undermines claimed precision, sycophancy complicates claimed kindness, and agentic failures contradict claimed obedience. These self-ratings should therefore be interpreted not as neutral measurements of model character, but as structured outputs of the same optimization processes that shape model behavior. This work provides a reproducible, character-grounded framework for evaluating what LLMs are, not just what they do.

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Physics and Society (physics.soc-ph)

Cite as: arXiv:2609.15998 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.15998v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.15998

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Tabia Tanzin Prama [view email] [v1] Thu, 9 Jul 2026 19:42:50 UTC (21,492 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models, by Tabia Tanzin Prama and 3 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-09

Change to browse by:

cs physics physics.soc-ph

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2609.15998v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Every large language model (LLM) has behavioral traits and moral preferences that comprise its character. Whether by design or as a…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.