aiqbench analysis
This research introduces STAR, a framework evaluating how Large Language Models align with human behavioral dispositions in social advice scenarios. The study reveals significant gaps where frontier models fail to reflect human consensus and exhibit reduced diversity compared to human choices when opinions diverge. These findings are critical for understanding the limitations of LLMs as reliable social advisors and highlight the disconnect between self-reported values and actual model behavior.
Evaluating Alignment of Behavioral Dispositions in LLMs
arXiv:2602.11328v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As people turn to LLMs for social advice, understanding their behavior in such contexts becomes essential. In this work, we focus on behavioral dispositions: the underlying tendencies that shape responses in social contexts. We introduce STAR, a framework for studying how closely the dispositions expressed by LLMs align with those of humans. STAR builds on established psychological questionnaires, adapting their items into realistic advice-seeking scenarios, as self-report may not transfer to actual advisory behavior. Using STAR, we construct a dataset of 23k scenarios, each validated by 3 raters and annotated with preferences from 10 participants. Across 25 LLMs, we find that (1) when human consensus is high, frontier models can fail to reflect it in 15-20% of cases, and smaller models fail at substantially higher rates; (2) when humans disagree, LLM recommendations are substantially less diverse than human choices, both within individual models and even across models from different providers, potentially narrowing the range of options users are guided toward; (3) LLMs' self-reported values are poor predictors of their recommendations. To support future research we make our dataset and code publicly available.
Abstract:As people turn to LLMs for social advice, understanding their behavior in such contexts becomes essential. In this work, we focus on behavioral dispositions: the underlying tendencies that shape responses in social contexts. We introduce STAR, a framework for studying how closely the dispositions expressed by LLMs align with those of humans. STAR builds on established psychological questionnaires, adapting their items into realistic advice-seeking scenarios, as self-report may not transfer to actual advisory behavior. Using STAR, we construct a dataset of 23k scenarios, each validated by 3 raters and annotated with preferences from 10 participants. Across 25 LLMs, we find that (1) when human consensus is high, frontier models can fail to reflect it in 15-20% of cases, and smaller models fail at substantially higher rates; (2) when humans disagree, LLM recommendations are substantially less diverse than human choices, both within individual models and even across models from different providers, potentially narrowing the range of options users are guided toward; (3) LLMs' self-reported values are poor predictors of their recommendations. To support future research we make our dataset and code publicly available.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2602.11328 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2602.11328v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.11328 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 275 words
Related coverage

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Story Imprinting: AI Assistants Absorb Traits from Human Characters They Resemble
LessWrong · Sep 21, 2026
Self-reported archetypes and behavioral failures in Large Language Models
arXiv · Sep 16, 2026