Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially complex, interaction-driven tasks, yet their ability to mirror human behavior in emotionally and strategically complex contexts remains underexplored. This study assesses the behavioral alignment of personality-prompted LLMs in adversarial dispute resolution by simulating multi-turn conflict dialogues that incorporate negotiation. Each LLM is guided by a matched Five-Factor personality profile to control for individual variation and enhance realism. We evaluate alignment across three dimensions: linguistic style, emotional expression (e.g., anger dynamics), and strategic behavior. GPT-4.1 achieves the closest alignment with humans in linguistic style and emotional dynamics, while Claude-3.7-Sonnet best reflects strategic behavior. Nonetheless, substantial alignment gaps persist. Our findings establish a benchmark for alignment between LLMs and humans in socially complex interactions, underscoring both the promise and the limitations of personality conditioning in dialogue modeling.

Psychology research has shown that humans are poor at estimating their performance on tasks, tending towards underconfidence on easy tasks and overconfidence on difficult tasks. We examine three LLMs, Llama-3-70B-instruct, Claude-3-Sonnet, and GPT-4o, on a range of QA tasks of varying difficulty, and show that models exhibit subtle differences from human patterns of overconfidence: less sensitive to task difficulty, and when prompted to answer based on different personas—e.g., expert vs layman, or different race, gender, and ages—the models will respond with stereotypically biased confidence estimations even though their underlying answer accuracy remains the same. Based on these observations, we propose Answer-Free Confidence Estimation (AFCE) to improve confidence calibration and LLM interpretability in these settings. AFCE is a self-assessment method that employs two stages of prompting, first eliciting only confidence scores on questions, then asking separately for the answer. Experiments on the MMLU and GPQA datasets spanning subjects and difficulty show that this separation of tasks significantly reduces overconfidence and delivers more human-like sensitivity to task difficulty.

Social determinants of health (SDOH) documented in the electronic health record through unstructured text are increasingly being studied to understand how SDOH impacts patient health outcomes. In this work, we utilize the Social History Annotation Corpus (SHAC), a multi-institutional corpus of de-identified social history sections annotated for SDOH, including substance use, employment, and living status information. We explore the automatic extraction of SDOH information with SHAC in both standoff and inline annotation formats using GPT-4 in a one-shot prompting setting. We compare GPT-4 extraction performance with a high-performing supervised approach and perform thorough error analyses. Our prompt-based GPT-4 method achieved an overall 0.652 F1 on the SHAC test set, similar to the 7th best-performing system among all teams in the n2c2 challenge with SHAC.