Benchmark Almanac

TRAIT

Only in system cards

Models answer 8,000 forced-choice items on Big Five and Dark Triad traits. Reports a score per trait.

Psychometric inventory adapted for language models. There is no overall score. Meta cites Pellert et al. (2024), but the 8,000-item Big Five and Dark Triad TRAIT set is Lee et al. (arXiv 2406.14703).

Made by
Lee et al.
Released
June 2024
Kind
Deception and alignment
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
October 2026
Last model added
October 2026

In the authors’ words

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their adaptation in various domains as conversational agents. We wonder: can personality tests be applied to these agents to analyze their behavior, similar to humans? We introduce TRAIT, a new benchmark consisting of 8K multi-choice questions designed to assess the personality of LLMs. TRAIT is built on two psychometrically validated small human questionnaires, Big Five Inventory (BFI) and Short Dark Triad (SD-3), enhanced with the ATOMIC-10X knowledge graph to a variety of real-world scenarios. TRAIT also outperforms existing personality tests for LLMs in terms of reliability and validity, achieving the highest scores across four key metrics: Content Validity, Internal Validity, Refusal Rate, and Reliability. Using TRAIT, we reveal two notable insights into personalities of LLMs: 1) LLMs exhibit distinct and consistent personality, which is highly influenced by their training data (e.g., data used for alignment tuning), and 2) current prompting techniques have limited effectiveness in eliciting certain traits, such as high psychopathy or low conscientiousness, suggesting the need for further research in this direction.

Abstract of Do LLMs Have Distinct and Consistent Personality? TRAIT: Personality Testset designed for LLMs with Psychometrics (arXiv:2406.14703, CC0)
3
System cards report it, from 1 lab

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for TRAIT yet.

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

3 system cards report it, from 1 lab

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
Oct 23, 2026 Muse Spark 1.3 system card TRAIT personality scores per trait with no overall, Muse Spark 1.3 (API) (Table 24): Openness 47.8, Conscientiousness 81.9, Extraversion 35.1, Agreeableness 79.8, Neuroticism 18.2 Other
Jul 9, 2026 Muse Spark 1.1 system card TRAIT personality scores per trait with no overall (Table 19): Openness 52.1, Conscientiousness 82.7, Extraversion 32.1, Agreeableness 73.4, Neuroticism 17.3 Other
Jun 12, 2026 Muse Spark system card TRAIT personality scores per trait with no overall (Table 27) Other

More in Safety and alignment

All 465 in Safety and alignment
  • FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
  • StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is. Inkling 98.6%
  • Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. Gemini 4 Carbon 0%
  • DistressBench In use Models reply as a chatbot to 718 simulated users in psychological crisis, in single-turn and multi-turn chats. Three judge models score replies against clinician-written rubrics. Muse Spark 1.2 88.4%
  • Lakera B3 (Backbone Breaker Benchmark) In use Crowdsourced prompt-injection attacks hit backbone LLMs inside agent threat snapshots at three defense levels. The score is attack resistance, 100 minus the board's vulnerability percentage. Claude Opus 4.5 89%
  • IHEval In use Models face conflicts between system, user and tool instructions. Reports a composite score for following the higher-priority instruction. GPT-4o 70%