mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

LEX-EC: A Lexical Evidence-Channel Audit Framework for Zero-Shot LLM Personality Classification in Black-Box Settings

arXiv 2607.24435 ↗First posted 27 Jul 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models may easily assign personality labels from text, but model interpretability remains an open problem. To address this gap, we introduce LEX-EC, a reusable black-box audit framework combining prevalence and agreement diagnostics with controlled lexical ablation to distinguish marginal-distribution effects from trait-associated signal recoverable under restricted evidence. Using this framework, we illustrate how various text genres may exhibit sharply different profiles: free-form essay text contains the broadest, but still weak, signal; in graduate student introductions, an observable Extraversion association weakened after masking; and single Facebook statuses yield little stable evidence even in a trait-balanced sample, indicating a possible lower bound of content or length. Masking topical and demographic content weakened some associations while leaving others detectable from function words, affective terms, and cognitive-style vocabulary. Linguistic prompting shifted model self-explanations but did not eliminate topical content. LEX-EC jointly evaluates classification prevalence, item-level association, chance-corrected agreement, persistence under lexical restriction, and prompt sensitivity in model-generated explanations. Across datasets, models, and prompts, LEX-EC characterizes how trait associations may vary with available lexical evidence, introducing a novel application of lexical methods to black-box interpretability in personality labeling.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Jul 2026.

Builds on

16 of 43 references.

References · 16

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
  4. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  5. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  6. 2023Better Zero-Shot Reasoning with Role-Play Promptingcited by 220
  7. 2013Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexiconcited by 193
  8. 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140
  9. 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?cited by 101
  10. 2023Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Frameworkcited by 69
  11. 2016Empath: Understanding Topic Signals in Large-Scale Textcited by 51
  12. 2023PsyCoT: Psychological Questionnaire as Powerful Chain-of-Thought for Personality Detectioncited by 21
4 more
  1. 2025Principled Personas: Defining and Measuring the Intended Effects of Persona Prompting on Task Performancecited by 17
  2. 2023Can ChatGPT Read Who You Are?cited by 5
  3. 2025Beyond the Black Box: Integrating Lexical and Semantic Methods in Quantitative Discourse Analysis with BERTopiccited by 1
  4. 2025Personality-Enhanced Social Recommendations in SAMI: Exploring the Role of Personality Detection in Matchmakingcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.