The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2607. 13162v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: What a language model will and will not do is largely set during post-training, but which behaviors it expresses, hides, or resists is not revealed by prompting alone.
arXiv:2607. 07916v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models exhibit recurring behavioural patterns -- personas -- that shape generalisation and safety, but we lack reliable tools for decomposing, measuring, and controlling them.
The paper introduces A-B-D, a method that infers personality traits of large language model agents from their behavioral data, combining functional actions and linguistic outputs across 345,667 real-world trajectories of 80 models. After filtering for stability and discriminability, 79 features are reduced to six reliable factors—two functional and four linguistic—revealing differences such as Claude‑Sonnet‑4.6’s planfulness versus GPT‑5.5’s low energy. The study also demonstrates a weak correlation between these inferred traits and agents’ self-reported Big Five scores, highlighting a knowledge‑action gap.
arXiv:2608.11025v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Emergent misalignment (EM) is the phenomenon where fine-tuning a language model on a narrow task leads to harmful behavior in unrelated domains. A...
arXiv:2606. 09843v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave.
arXiv:2607. 26389v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fine-tuning a language model on data containing a narrow flaw, such as insecure code or incorrect mathematical answers, can cause broad misalignment through a mechanism that remains debated.