mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Unsampled Truth: Quantifying Prompt Artifacts in LM Psychometrics

arXiv 2606.03357 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When prompting language models for psychometric assessment, researchers assume that the responses reflect the injected persona and the meaning of the survey item. We test this premise using a diagnostic design that crosses five semantically distinct baseline personas with five semantically equivalent variants of each of four prompt components (persona wording, task instruction, item wording, option symbol). Measuring the 1-Wasserstein distance between the resulting response distributions and partitioning the variation among the five components allows for the separation of target effects from prompt artifacts. We apply the framework to 13 open-weight small language models (0.6B to 14B) on the Big Five Inventory and the Short Dark Triad. We find that in most models, the task instruction and option symbol displace response distributions further than paraphrasing the persona description or the item itself. For a substantial share of items, the artifact share of explained variation exceeds 50%; non-semantic changes of the prompt account for more response variation than the baseline personas. Our framework lets researchers quantify these prompt artifacts before interpreting psychometric output.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2026.

Builds on

16 of 41 references.

References · 16

  1. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  2. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
  3. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
  4. 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 290
  5. 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traitscited by 229
  6. 2023Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey designcited by 176
  7. 2024Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Modelscited by 162
  8. 2024What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineeringcited by 88
  9. 2024"My Answer is C": First-Token Probabilities Do Not Match Text Answers in Instruction-Tuned Language Modelscited by 66
  10. 2024Do LLMs Have Distinct and Consistent Personality? TRAIT: Personality Testset designed for LLMs with Psychometricscited by 56
  11. 2025Persistent Instability in LLM's Personality Measurements: Effects of Scale, Reasoning, and Conversation Historycited by 25
  12. 2025Flaw or Artifact? Rethinking Prompt Sensitivity in Evaluating LLMscited by 23
4 more
  1. 2024Can LLM "Self-report"?: Evaluating the Validity of Self-report Scales in Measuring Personality Design in LLM-based Chatbotscited by 19
  2. 2024LMLPA: Language Model Linguistic Personality Assessmentcited by 15
  3. 2025Prompt Perturbations Reveal Human-Like Biases in Large Language Model Survey Responsescited by 13
  4. 2025Survey Response Generation: Generating Closed-Ended Survey Responses In-Silico with Large Language Modelscited by 8

Built on by

Not cited yet.