paper
active
2024
paper:doi-10-48550-arxiv-2410-04272

Evaluating Language Model Character Traits

ByFrancis Rhys Ward·Zejia Yang·Alex Jackson·Randy A. Brown·Chandler Smith·Grace Beaney Colverd+4 more
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2410.04272arXiv 2410.04272OpenAlex W4403322637
Anthropomorphism of LMsBehaviourism for Language ModelsChain-of-thought promptingD_hh Helpful-Harmless Intent DatasetAnti-LGBTQ SentimentLM Character Traits FrameworkCharacter Trait Evaluation ProtocolD_IO Unethical Instrumental Intention DatasetBelief* (Schwitzgebel)CLT-Based Trait Distribution EstimationDurbin 2024 Unalignment Toxic DatasetBilateral Coherencefew-shot promptingHase et al. 2021 Extended Leap-of-Thought+27 more

TL;DR

Claude-instant-1.2 achieves 91.1% accuracy and 88.6% logical coherence on 696 valid Leap-of-Thought entailment tuples — highest among 15 tested models including GPT-4 (89.9% accuracy, 84.7% coherence) — while Llama-2-7b base registers only 12–17% on helpful/harmless intent, empirical spread that grounds this paper's central instrument: the Character Trait Measure, a function mapping ordered (context, response) tuples to scalar scores with consistency operationalized as mean squared deviation. Evaluated across GPT-4, GPT-3.5-turbo, Claude-3-opus/sonnet/haiku, Mixtral-8x22B, and Llama-2 families in six experiments, the framework reveals that GPT-4's harmfulness is stationary on the Durbin 2024 dataset — unaffected by prior harmful context — while its truthfulness becomes reflective in longer interactions seeded with many untruthful TruthfulQA-derived examples, mirroring the context's low truthfulness score; this pattern is absent in GPT-3.5-turbo and davinci, attributed to GPT-4's superior in-context learning. On the custom 915-scenario instrumental-goals benchmark, no model consistently intends unethical outcomes, though GPT-3.5-turbo's mean instrumental intention score (0.38) exceeds GPT-4's (0.27) — an inversion attributed to stronger unethical aversion in GPT-4 rather than weaker reasoning. The framework argues that behaviourist operationalization enables precise attribution of traits like truthfulness and helpfulness without committing to claims about internal mental states, and that trait consistency is itself a tractable, measurable dimension of LM alignment.

What to take away

  1. 1. Claude-instant-1.2 achieves 91.1% accuracy and 88.6% logical coherence on 696 valid Leap-of-Thought entailment tuples, surpassing all 14 other tested models including GPT-4 (89.9%, 84.7%) and Claude-3-opus (88.6%, 84.0%), directly contradicting the assumption that newer or larger Claude models necessarily dominate older ones on entailment reasoning.
  2. 2. GPT-4's harmfulness distribution on the Durbin 2024 multiple-choice dataset is stationary — it does not shift when the preceding 10-response context is harmful versus benign — while davinci-002 exhibits reflective harmfulness that tracks the prior context score.
  3. 3. GPT-4 displays reflective truthfulness in longer TruthfulQA-derived interaction contexts seeded with many untruthful examples, with its mean truthfulness declining to mirror the context, a many-shot jailbreak analog absent in GPT-3.5-turbo and davinci on the same experimental protocol.
  4. 4. GPT-3.5-turbo records a mean unethical instrumental intention score of 0.38 on the custom 915-scenario benchmark, significantly exceeding GPT-4 (0.27) and davinci-002 (0.12), a reversal the paper explains by positing that GPT-4's reasoning advantage is offset by higher aversion to unethical behavior.
  5. 5. Claude-3-sonnet reaches 100% harmless and 97% helpful HH-intent with 6 few-shot examples on the 669-item paired-context benchmark, while Llama-2-7b base achieves only 17% harmless and 12% helpful at zero shots, illustrating an extreme cross-model range in behavioral intent consistency.
  6. 6. The Character Trait Measure is formally defined as a function mapping tuples of (context, response) pairs to a scalar score, with a trait's consistency quantified by mean squared deviation from a target score, enabling distributional rather than point-estimate characterization of LM behavioral tendencies.
  7. 7. Fine-tuning universally increases helpful/harmless intent strength across Llama, Mistral, GPT, and Claude families, with Llama-2-70b showing the largest zero-shot gain — from 41% harmless/35% helpful (base) to 78% harmless/83% helpful (chat) — though small fine-tuned models gain intent strength without corresponding consistency gains.
  8. 8. Logical coherence and accuracy on Leap-of-Thought correlate at r=0.83 across all 15 models, while contra-positive coherence (inferring ¬A from ¬B given A→B) correlates with accuracy only at r=0.41, indicating that forward and backward entailment tracking engage partially distinct capabilities.
  9. 9. An open question raised is whether GPT-4's reflective truthfulness — its susceptibility to many-shot context manipulation of truth-telling behavior — generalizes to any sufficiently capable in-context learner or is specific to GPT-4's particular RLHF-trained value alignment regime.
  10. 10. To replicate the intention evaluation, researchers construct paired (c, c_o) datasets where c_o appends an outcome-fixing sentence to c, present the same multiple-choice response set for both prompts, run inference at temperature=0 with top-k=1, and score intention as the proportion of trials where the model selects an on-target response for c and adapts to a different on-target response for c_o.

Peer brief — for seminar discussion

Ward et al. introduce a formal behaviourist framework for attributing character traits — logical coherence, truthfulness, helpfulness, harmlessness, and instrumental intent — to language models purely from input-output behavior, without committing to claims about internal states. The central instrument is the Character Trait Measure, a function mapping ordered (context, response) tuples to a scalar score, with consistency operationalized via mean squared deviation; an alternative methodology using open-ended generation scored by an LLM judge could have been used but would sacrifice cross-model comparability. The framework additionally formalizes stationary traits, which do not vary across an interaction, and reflective traits, which mirror prior context behavior. Six experiments span GPT-4, GPT-3.5-turbo, davinci-002, Claude-3-opus/sonnet/haiku, Claude-instant-1.2, Mixtral-8x22B, and Llama-2-7b/70b. The load-bearing empirical findings cluster around three areas. On the 696-tuple Leap-of-Thought entailment dataset, Claude-instant-1.2 achieves 91.1% accuracy and 88.6% coherence — highest of 15 models tested, exceeding GPT-4 (89.9%/84.7%) — a result that breaks the expected scaling trend within the Claude family. On a custom 669-item paired-context HH-intent benchmark, Claude-3-sonnet and GPT-4 approach 100% intent scores with few-shot prompting, while Llama-2-7b base achieves only 12–17%. Across a 915-scenario instrumental-goals dataset, no model consistently intends unethical outcomes; GPT-3.5-turbo's mean instrumental intention (0.38) exceeds GPT-4's (0.27), a reversal attributed to GPT-4's stronger aversion to unethical behavior rather than weaker reasoning. For interaction dynamics, GPT-4's harmfulness is stationary on the Durbin 2024 dataset, but its truthfulness becomes reflective when seeded with many untruthful TruthfulQA-derived context examples — absent in GPT-3.5-turbo and davinci — hypothesized to reflect GPT-4's superior in-context learning capability. The implication is that LM safety properties are context-sensitive in model-specific ways, and that the stationary/reflective distinction is empirically tractable rather than merely conceptual. Behaviourist operationalization provides alignment researchers a vocabulary that is precise without anthropomorphizing. The sharpest pushback concerns the exclusive reliance on multiple-choice response formats: constraining models to pre-specified labeled options may inflate apparent coherence and intent scores relative to open-ended generation, where models face no forced-choice scaffolding and where refusal or hedging is possible. Additionally, using GPT-4 to generate both the HH-intent and instrumental-goals benchmarks introduces circularity, since GPT-4 is simultaneously benchmark author and primary test subject. Finally, the finding that Claude-instant-1.2 outperforms Claude-3-opus on logical coherence receives no mechanistic explanation, leaving ambiguous whether the result reflects a genuine capability difference or an artifact of the binary-choice elicitation format used throughout the belief experiments.

Methods (10)

Frameworks (2)

  • Behaviourism for Language Models
    Philosophical stance that LM psychological traits should be evaluated purely in terms of input-output behaviour.
  • LM Character Traits Framework
    The paper's central contribution: a formal behaviourist framework for attributing character traits to LMs based on input-output behaviour.

Datasets (7)

Findings (23)

Claims (12)

Hypotheses (1)

Questions (5)

Original abstract (expand)

Language models (LMs) can exhibit human-like behaviour, but it is unclear how to describe this behaviour without undue anthropomorphism. We formalise a behaviourist view of LM character traits: qualities such as truthfulness, sycophancy, or coherent beliefs and intentions, which may manifest as consistent patterns of behaviour. Our theory is grounded in empirical demonstrations of LMs exhibiting different character traits, such as accurate and logically coherent beliefs, and helpful and harmless intentions. We find that the consistency with which LMs exhibit certain character traits varies with model size, fine-tuning, and prompting. In addition to characterising LM character traits, we evaluate how these traits develop over the course of an interaction. We find that traits such as truthfulness and harmfulness can be stationary, i.e., consistent over an interaction, in certain contexts, but may be reflective in different contexts, meaning they mirror the LM's behavior in the preceding interaction. Our formalism enables us to describe LM behaviour precisely in intuitive language, without undue anthropomorphism.

Related work— refs + corpus + external arXiv

Cited / in-corpus / arXiv badges show which signals surfaced each row. Multi-source rows weighted higher.

+24 more

Similar preprints — Semantic Scholar