mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Feedback Forensics: A Toolkit to Measure AI Personality

arXiv 2509.26305 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Some traits making a "good" AI model are hard to describe upfront. For example, should responses be more polite or more casual? Such traits are sometimes summarized as model character or personality. Without a clear objective, conventional benchmarks based on automatic validation struggle to measure such traits. Evaluation methods using human feedback such as Chatbot Arena have emerged as a popular alternative. These methods infer "better" personality and other desirable traits implicitly by ranking multiple model responses relative to each other. Recent issues with model releases highlight limitations of these existing opaque evaluation approaches: a major model was rolled back over sycophantic personality issues, models were observed overfitting to such feedback-based leaderboards. Despite these known issues, limited public tooling exists to explicitly evaluate model personality. We introduce Feedback Forensics: an open-source toolkit to track AI personality changes, both those encouraged by human (or AI) feedback, and those exhibited across AI models trained and evaluated on such feedback. Leveraging AI annotators, our toolkit enables investigating personality via Python API and browser app. We demonstrate the toolkit's usefulness in two steps: (A) first we analyse the personality traits encouraged in popular human feedback datasets including Chatbot Arena, MultiPref and PRISM; and (B) then use our toolkit to analyse how much popular models exhibit such traits. We release (1) our Feedback Forensics toolkit alongside (2) a web app tracking AI personality in popular models and feedback datasets as well as (3) the underlying annotation data at https://github.com/rdnfn/feedback-forensics.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 13 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2025.

Builds on

13 of 28 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Hybrid Preferences: Learning to Route Instances for Human vs. AI Feedback24 Oct
  2. 2024Inverse Constitutional AI: Compressing Preferences into Principles2 Jun
  3. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference7 Mar

Other references · 10

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  3. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  4. 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 629
  5. 2023Personality Traits in Large Language Modelscited by 169
  6. 2022Evaluating and Inducing Personality in Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 123
  7. 2025Idiosyncrasies in Large Language Modelscited by 33
  8. 2024Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometricscited by 22
  9. 2024VisionArena: 230K Real World User-VLM Conversations with Preference Labelscited by 22
  10. 2024VibeCheck: Discover and Quantify Qualitative Differences in Large Language Modelscited by 17

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026MTI: A Behavior-Based Temperament Profiling System for AI Agents
  2. 2024Designing AI-Agents with Personalities: A Psychometric Approach
  3. 2026On the Behavioral Traits of LLM Agents
  4. 2025Beyond BFI: The CSI for Enhanced Reliability and Validity in Evaluating LLM Personality Traits
  5. 2026PTCBENCH: Benchmarking Contextual Stability of Personality Traits in LLM Systems
  6. 2026Mimetic Alignment with ASPECT: Evaluation of AI-inferred Personal Profiles
  7. 2025Deterministic AI Agent Personality Expression through Standard Psychological Diagnostics
  8. 2026Benchmarking Psychological Dynamics in Generative Agents