The Pinocchio Dimension: Phenomenality of Experience as the Primary Axis of LLM Psychometric Differences
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We administer 45 validated psychometric questionnaires to 50 large language models (LLMs) to identify the dimensions along which LLMs differ psychometrically. Using Supervised Semantic Differential (SSD), we find that the primary axis of between-model variance separates items describing phenomenally rich experience, including embodied sensation, felt affect, inner speech, imagery, and empathy, from items describing stimulus-driven behavioral reactivity (R2adj=.037, p<.0001). To test this hypothesis at the item level, we introduce the Pinocchio score (πi), the ratio of inter-model response variance under neutral prompting to that under a human-simulation prompt, as an annotation-free measure of each item's experiential demand. πi predicts condition-induced shifts in primary factor loading magnitudes (ρ=-.215, p<.0001, n=1292--1310 items), confirming that between-model divergence on experiential items is structured rather than noisy. Applying PCA to per-model EFA scores across all questionnaires reveals one dominant dimension, the Pinocchio Axis (Pi): the degree to which a model presents itself as a locus of phenomenal experience rather than a system of behavioral responses. This axis captures 47.1% of cross-questionnaire between-model variance in primary factor scores and converges with item-level Pinocchio scores (r=.864). Marked within-provider divergence across closely related model variants is consistent with post-training fine-tuning as a key contributor, supporting the interpretation that Pi reflects a training-shaped self-representational tendency governing how a model treats experiential language as self-applicable. The dominant axis of between-model psychometric variation is therefore not a conventional personality trait but a self-representational stance toward one's own nature as an experiencer.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.
Builds on
21 of 37 references.
References · 21
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2023Role-Play with Large Language Modelscited by 290
- 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traitscited by 229
- 2022Who is GPT-3? An Exploration of Personality, Values and Demographicscited by 112
- 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 105
- 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 86
- 2023Moral Foundations of Large Language Modelscited by 84
- 2026The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Modelscited by 76
- 2023Could a Large Language Model be Conscious?cited by 70
- 2024Do LLMs Have Distinct and Consistent Personality? TRAIT: Personality Testset designed for LLMs with Psychometricscited by 56
- 2024Large Language Models Show Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Survey Responsescited by 27
- 2023Challenging the Validity of Personality Tests for Large Language Modelscited by 25
9 more
- 2025Does It Make Sense to Speak of Introspection in Large Language Models?cited by 22
- 2025Value Portrait: Assessing Language Models' Values through Psychometrically and Ecologically Valid Itemscited by 18
- 2023Personality testing of Large Language Models: Limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosocialitycited by 16
- 2024Self-assessment, Exhibition, and Recognition: a Review of Personality in Large Language Modelscited by 10
- 2025From Prompts to Constructs: A Dual-Validity Framework for Large Language Model Research in Psychologycited by 9
- 2026Political Alignment in Large Language Models: A Multidimensional Audit of Psychometric Identity and Behavioral Biascited by 5
- 2025A Detailed Factor Analysis for the Political Compass Test: Navigating Ideologies of Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026On the Credibility of Evaluating LLMs using Survey Questionscited by 3
- 2026Interpretable Semantic Gradients in SSD: A PCA Sweep Approach and a Case Study on AI Discoursecited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.