PTEI: Integrating Personality Traits to Enhance Emotional Intelligence in Large Language Models

Despite advances in Emotional Intelligence (EI), Large Language Models (LLMs) still significantly underperform humans in complex emotional reasoning. This gap originates partly from the limited incorporation of individual differences, particularly personality traits, which are fundamental to human emotional inference. To address this, we propose PTEI, a novel framework for integrating Personality Traits into Emotional Intelligence tasks using LLMs. In PTEI, MBTI and OCEAN personality traits are first extracted directly from the given emotional scenarios and then utilized as contextual knowledge within personality-aware prompts, guiding LLMs to accurately infer emotions and their underlying causes. To ensure optimal contextual grounding, we employ Contrastive Learning to construct an optimized retrieval system that surfaces emotionally and personally aligned scenarios, enhancing reasoning quality. Extensive experiments on established EI benchmarks show that PTEI enhances the Emotional Understanding (EU) capabilities of various LLMs, with the strongest improvement observed in GPT models. Combining PTEI with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning yields an additional 4 percent increase in accuracy. These findings underscore PTEI's contribution toward advancing AI systems with more sophisticated social and psychological grounding.

Persona Cartography: Charting Language Model Personality Traits in Weight Space

Large language models exhibit recurring behavioural patterns -- personas -- that shape generalisation and safety, but we lack reliable tools for decomposing, measuring, and controlling them. Our central insight is to treat personas as positions in a space of behavioural traits, using the OCEAN framework to describe model personas in terms of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. We train low-rank adapters to amplify or suppress individual traits, and evaluate their effects using an LLM-judge calibrated against a human-validated panel, trait-specific multiple-choice benchmarks, and standard capability evaluations. Across six models from three families (4B-32B), we find that each adapter moves its target trait largely monotonically with scale, combines approximately additively with other adapters to construct mixed personas, and preserves performance on capability benchmarks at moderate scales. We further show that the induced trait axes affect safety-relevant behaviour in downstream evaluations: for example, moving along neuroticism and agreeableness axes affects frustration and sycophancy respectively. We also introduce an unsupervised psychometric pipeline that recovers four interpretable behavioural factors (tone, initiative, didacticism, epistemic caution) from model rollouts. Persona control can then be considered in terms of learning, scaling, and composing traits in weight space, providing a bridge between personality measurement, model editing, and safety.

Rethinking Psychometric Evaluation of LLMs: When and Why Self-Reports Predict Behavior

Anticipating LLM behavioral tendencies from low-cost psychometric probes is critical for safe deployment, but only if self-reports (SR) reliably predict behavior. Recent work documented substantial SR-behavior dissociation in LLMs, but relied on broad personality traits (Big 5) that predict specific behaviors weakly, even in humans. Furthermore, the isolation of conversational sessions combined with weak context matching left open whether LLMs truly lack coherence or whether the conditions needed to detect such coherence were not met. We contrast Big 5 with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which measures intention targeted to a specific behavior and predicts human behavior substantially better than broad traits. We run experiments across four behavioral tasks and 11 frontier LLMs, while also varying session context and identity induction. We find that SR-behavior coherence exists but is selective. 1) Within a shared conversation, the Theory of Planned Behavior reaches human-level coherence; Big 5 does not. 2) Across separate conversations, coherence survives only for behaviors anchored outside the immediate prompt, such as implicit bias shaped by training, and collapses when behavior is strongly primed by context, as with sycophancy. 3) Persona prompting makes self-reports more consistent across conversations, but does not bring behavior into alignment. These findings suggest that coarse personality frameworks, such as Big 5 may not be the best tools for testing deployment behavior. More task- and behavior-specific instruments are needed, and even these must be evaluated across tasks and contexts.