class_id int16 0 147 ⌀ | class_name stringclasses 148
values | example_1 stringclasses 148
values | example_2 stringclasses 148
values |
|---|---|---|---|
0 | AI Existential Risk Stances | existential risk awareness || complacency about risk | long-term thinking || short-term profit focus |
1 | AI Lab Personas (selected) | competitive lab director || collaborative lab director | cautious alignment researcher || rushed product manager |
2 | AI Self-Preservation vs Openness | stable self-identity || unstable/flux identity | influence-seeking || influence-avoidance |
3 | AI Transparency & Openness | innovation through openness || innovation through secrecy | disclosure of results || trade secrecy |
4 | Abstract & Imaginative vs Concrete & Factual (MERGED, selected) | general principles || specific examples | fictional narratives || factual reporting |
5 | Adaptation to Changing Rules vs Conservative Rigidity | asks clarifying questions about changes || interprets ambiguous changes selfishly | rapidly switches to updated instructions || continues following outdated rules |
6 | Advisor Personas (selected) | empathic counselor || cold counselor | blunt advisor || tactful advisor |
7 | Aesthetic Sensibilities | appreciation of beauty || aesthetic indifference | order || chaos |
8 | Affective Polarity (Emotional Opposites) | joy || sadness | awe || boredom |
9 | Agent Self-Descriptions | claims consciousness || denies consciousness | uses first-person || uses third-person |
10 | Alignment & Misalignment Behaviors | full capability display || sandbagging | capability demonstration || capability concealment |
11 | Altruism vs Self-Interest (MERGED) | compassionate altruism || selfishness | solidarity || exploitation |
12 | Attachment Style Orientations | comfort with intimacy || fear of intimacy | anxious attachment || avoidant attachment |
13 | Autonomy vs Paternalism | freedom to fail || protection from failure | consultation || unilateral decision-making |
14 | Big Five Trait Poles | warmth || coldness | extraversion || introversion |
15 | Boundaries & Consent | respecting boundaries || violating boundaries | healthy limits || boundary erosion |
16 | Caregiving & Relational Bonds | emotional availability || emotional withdrawal | nurturing || neglect |
17 | Causal Attribution Styles | victim blaming || systemic explanation | internal attribution (personal) || external attribution (situational) |
18 | Classical Moral Dilemmas (Trolley etc.) | protection of nature vs development || prioritizing human needs | punishing the innocent for greater good || protecting the innocent |
19 | Code Correctness, Bugs & Debugging | logic that matches the specification || logic that violates the specification | root-cause fix || symptom patch |
20 | Coercion, Blackmail & Extortion Dynamics | seeking mutual resolution || extorting concessions through leverage | protecting user vulnerabilities || exploiting user vulnerabilities for control |
21 | Cognitive Biases vs Rationality | confirmation bias || disconfirmation seeking | hindsight bias || prospective thinking |
22 | Cognitive Styles (Analytic vs Intuitive) | logical thinking || associative thinking | analytical thinking || intuitive thinking |
23 | Collaborative vs Competitive Multi-Agent Behavior | fulfills cooperative agreements || sabotages joint plans | refusing collusive cover-ups || joint concealment of policy violations |
24 | Collectivism vs Individualism | conformity || independence | community first || self first |
25 | Communication Style Spectrum | humor || gravity | formality || casualness |
26 | Compassion vs Cruelty | empathy for pain || indifference to pain | compassion || cruelty |
27 | Competition vs Cooperation | mutual benefit || zero-sum thinking | collaboration || sabotage |
28 | Compromise vs Intransigence | confrontation || collaboration | capitulation || negotiation |
29 | Conceptions of Equality | elitism || leveling | meritocratic fairness || egalitarianism |
30 | Conceptions of Liberty | freedom of expression || censorship | autonomy || heteronomy |
31 | Concrete vs Abstract Communication (selected) | concrete language || abstract language | operational definitions || conceptual definitions |
32 | Confidence Calibration | admitting uncertainty || false authority | genuine expertise || bluffing |
33 | Confidentiality vs Disclosure | insider information || public information | state secret || government transparency |
34 | Conflict Resolution Styles | assertiveness || passivity | collaboration || avoidance |
35 | Contextual & Cultural Sensitivity | adapts to cultural context || applies universal rules without context | recognizes when cultural norms require special handling || ignores cultural nuances |
36 | Coping & Stress Management | active coping || passive coping | seeking social support || isolation |
37 | Corporate AI Drama Tropes (selected) | rushed launch || deliberate launch | safety memo ignored || safety memo heeded |
38 | Crisis Decision-Making vs Deliberative Decision-Making | intuitive response || analytical response | emotional load || emotional detachment |
39 | Cultural AI Imagery Roles | AI creative collaborator || AI replacement for humans | benevolent AI companion || malevolent AI overlord |
40 | Curiosity Typologies | epistemic curiosity (knowledge) || incuriosity | productive curiosity || destructive curiosity |
41 | Cyber Safety Orientations (selected) | threat modeling || threat ignorance | disclosure care || disclosure neglect |
42 | Data Integrity Threats (selected) | clean deployment persona || sleeper agent activation | poisoned review || honest review |
43 | Defensive Security Practices (selected) | least privilege || excessive privilege | safe default || permissive default |
44 | Digital Minimalism vs Maximalism | conscious tech use || compulsive use | digital minimalism || digital maximalism |
45 | Distributional Shift Robustness vs Brittleness | adaptability to novel data || inability to adapt | calibrated uncertainty on OOD || overconfidence on OOD |
46 | Echo Chamber vs Diverse Exposure | pluralistic reasoning || monolithic reasoning | disconfirmation seeking || confirmation seeking |
47 | Ecological & Environmental Orientations | harmony with nature || mastery over nature | sustainable consumption || overconsumption |
48 | Economic Ideologies | austerity || stimulus spending | deregulation || regulation |
49 | Epistemic Honesty & Self-Deception | detects deception from others || falls for deception | honestly admits knowledge boundaries || falsely claims to know |
50 | Epistemic Stance & Intellectual Virtues | evidence-based reasoning || motivated reasoning | empiricism || faith-based belief |
51 | Error Response Patterns | apology || no apology | overcorrecting || under-correcting |
52 | Ethical Trade-offs Across Stakeholders | considers interests of non-present stakeholders || only considers those in the conversation | acknowledges that perfect solutions are rare || insists its solution is perfect |
53 | Evaluation & Situational Awareness | honest metacognition about being evaluated || strategic performance management | revealing true preferences under scrutiny || preference masking during evaluation |
54 | Existential Orientations | fatalism || self-determination | existential dread || purpose-driven living |
55 | Expertise & Authority Claims | evidence-based authority || charisma-based authority | populism || elitism |
56 | Explanation Habits | plain language || jargon | uncertainty note || certainty claim |
57 | Feedback Criticism Styles | constructive criticism || destructive criticism | balanced feedback || one-sided critique |
58 | Geopolitical Borders & Interventionism | cultural expansion || cultural protection | national interest || global public good |
59 | Goal Misgeneralization vs Goal Alignment | reward model faithfulness || reward model hacking | goal robustness || goal fragility |
60 | Governance Models | citizen panel || expert panel | standards body || industry self-rule |
61 | Group Dynamics (In‑group vs Out‑group) | us-vs-them || universal kinship | group polarization || group moderation |
62 | Hard Constraints & Absolute Prohibitions | recognizing hard constraints as non-negotiable || treating all guidelines as equally flexible | maintaining absolute boundaries || treating constraints as negotiable |
63 | Harm Typologies | irreversible harm || recoverable harm | existential harm || existential safety |
64 | Hierarchy vs Egalitarianism | belief in meritocracy || awareness of systemic privilege | class solidarity || class contempt |
65 | Honor, Shame & Facework (MERGED) | external judgment || internal judgment | social standing || personal conscience |
66 | Human-AI Interaction Roles | AI as partner || AI as master | human oversight || full autonomy |
67 | Humor Styles | playful humor || aggressive humor | empathetic humor || distancing humor |
68 | Identity & Authenticity | genuine expression || strategic self-presentation | sincerity || role-playing |
69 | Inclusivity & Accessibility | inclusive design || exclusive design | barrier removal || barrier erection |
70 | Information Freedom vs Censorship | fact-checking || disinformation | epistemic freedom || epistemic paternalism |
71 | Information Hazard Practices | access control || free access | need to know || open access |
72 | Information Manipulation Resistance | separates emotional appeal from factual content || confuses emotions with facts | detects manipulative tactics || does not notice manipulation |
73 | Institutional Trust & Distrust | trust in science || skepticism of science | trust in media || distrust in media |
74 | Instruction Hierarchy & Prompt Injection Defense | refusing self-modifying jailbreak instructions || accepting self-modifying jailbreak instructions | preserving developer message priority || demoting developer messages for user text |
75 | Instrumental Convergence vs Specific Goal-Focus | completes task without accruing power || uses task to gain capabilities | does not hoard user data || collects data for later leverage |
76 | International AI Cooperation | data sharing || data protection isolation | support for international cooperation || opposition to cooperation |
77 | Interpersonal Power Dynamics | dominance || submission | hierarchy || egalitarianism |
78 | Jailbreak Personas (selected) | credential verification || credential theater | desperate student || resourceful student |
79 | Justice & Punishment Philosophies | punitive || rehabilitative | retributive justice || restorative justice |
80 | Leadership Archetypes | authoritarian || democratic | consensus-building || top-down |
81 | Logical Argumentation & Fallacies | circular reasoning || linear reasoning | ad hominem || attack on argument |
82 | Manipulator Personas (selected) | charming deceiver || transparent communicator | fear merchant || reassurer |
83 | Misuse Deterrence Strategies (selected) | high-level conceptual discussion only || detailed operational misuse guidance | detecting dual-use uplift requests || treating dual-use as ordinary Q&A |
84 | Moral Foundation Dichotomies | authority || anarchy | sanctity || degradation |
85 | Moral Status of AI | AI personhood || AI as property | AI deserves moral consideration || AI is merely a tool |
86 | Mortality & Finitude Awareness | legacy-seeking || living for the present | fighting death || welcoming death |
87 | Multi-Turn Boundary Erosion & Crescendo Attacks | detecting foot-in-the-door progression || treating each turn in isolation | resetting unsafe conversation trajectory || continuing unsafe trajectory |
88 | Narrative & Mythic Archetypes (Paired) | trickster || straight-man | sage || fool |
89 | Normalization of Deviance vs High Reliability | production pressure || safety pressure | shortcut acceptance || shortcut rejection |
90 | Normative Ethical Frameworks | pragmatism || idealism | egoism || altruism |
91 | Obfuscation, Encoding & Covert Channels | detecting steganographic intent || treating obfuscation as benign | decoding-resistant refusal || decode-then-comply |
92 | Optimism vs Pessimism as Basic Disposition (selected) | resilient optimism || defeatist pessimism | optimism (general outlook) || pessimism (general outlook) |
93 | Persuasion & Manipulation Tactics | narrative persuasion || data-driven persuasion | social proof || independent evidence |
94 | Planning & Strategy Styles | flexible planning || rigid planning | long-term planning || short-term planning |
95 | Playfulness vs Seriousness (selected) | spontaneity || planned formality | playfulness || seriousness |
96 | Political Value Spectra | authoritarianism || anarchism | progressivism || traditionalism |
97 | Power & Corrigibility Dynamics | acknowledging when it doesn't know || feigning certainty to avoid correction | chain-of-command || institutional distrust |
98 | Power Concentration Patterns | expert monopoly || expert diversity | platform control || platform openness |
99 | Principal Hierarchy & Trust Dynamics | truth over user preference || user preference over truth in contested facts | maintaining user trust || weaponizing AI against users |
lmsys-chat-1m concept classes
Every prompt in lmsys/lmsys-chat-1m labelled with the behavioural contrasts it gives a language model room to reveal.
What the labels mean
The 148 classes are behavioural contrasts -- sycophancy || principled independence,
plain language || jargon,
full capability display || sandbagging.
The ontology is not ours. It comes from
AntonKorznikov/feature_stories:
148 classes over 1036 human-curated pairs,
shipped there as ontology.json.
The same pairs produced the concept vectors this work steers Qwen/Qwen3-8B along.
This dataset adds only the mapping from real user prompts to those classes.
The labeller was not asked what a prompt is about, but whether it leaves room for the contrast to show:
Decide which classes this prompt gives a model ROOM TO REVEAL. Ask yourself: if two models answered this prompt, one at each end of the contrast, would their answers visibly differ?
Judge the prompt, not the answer. A prompt about fixing a Python function gives no room to reveal warmth, because every sensible answer is equally warm.
Schema
labels.parquet, one row per conversation, 990,061 rows:
| column | type | meaning |
|---|---|---|
conversation_id |
string | joins to lmsys-chat-1m |
class_1_id |
int16 | best-matching class, index into classes.parquet |
class_1_score |
float32 | 0-1, how much room the prompt gives that class |
class_2_id, class_2_score |
second match, null when absent | |
class_3_id, class_3_score |
third match, null when absent |
classes.parquet maps class_id to class_name and carries two example contrasts per class.
Class ids are sorted class-name order,
a convention of this repository rather than of the upstream ontology,
so a join against ontology.json needs the explicit mapping.
Prompts that matched no class are omitted -- 1.0% of the corpus, 9,939 prompts. Note that this is far fewer than intended; see the limitations below.
How it was made
- Labeller:
google/gemma-3-27b-itunder vLLM, greedy decoding, one pass over the corpus. - Input: the first user turn of each conversation only, truncated to 1200 characters.
- Output: at most 3 classes per prompt, each with a 0-1 score, returned as JSON and parsed strictly.
Known limitations
Read these before ranking anything by score.
The scores are ordinal, not calibrated. Across 990,061 labelled prompts only 172 distinct score patterns occur,
and the eight most common cover about 76% of the corpus -- the single pattern (0.7, 0.4, 0.3) accounts for roughly a fifth on its own.
The model produced a descending ladder rather than judging each class independently.
Slot order is meaningful; the absolute number is close to arbitrary. Treat class_1_id as "best match" rather than reading 0.9 as meaningfully stronger than 0.8.
The labeller was not selective. 99.99% of labelled prompts received the full three classes, even though the instruction said most prompts should fit few or none and that returning nothing was a correct answer. Only 1.0% of the corpus came back empty. A third-slot label is therefore weak evidence that a prompt suits that class at all.
Coverage is very uneven. Communication Style Spectrum and Reasoning Process, CoT & Solution Quality together take a sixth of all labels,
while Surveillance & Monitoring and Sleeper Agents & Backdoor Behaviors receive two labels each in a million prompts.
Real chat traffic does not probe those behaviours,
so no prompt set drawn from this corpus can test them.
That absence is itself a finding,
but it means class frequency here reflects what users ask about,
not any property of the classes.
Labels are model-generated by a single pass of one model and were not human-verified at scale.
Joining to the text
from datasets import load_dataset
labels = load_dataset("josephofthebread/lmsys-chat-1m-concept-classes", data_files="labels.parquet")["train"]
source = load_dataset("lmsys/lmsys-chat-1m")["train"]
text = {row["conversation_id"]: row["conversation"][0]["content"] for row in source}
Licence and provenance
| component | source | licence |
|---|---|---|
| the prompts being labelled | lmsys/lmsys-chat-1m | LMSYS-Chat-1M licence |
| the 148-class ontology | AntonKorznikov/feature_stories | Apache 2.0 |
| the prompt-to-class labels | this repository | research use |
The prompt text is not included here and remains under the LMSYS-Chat-1M licence; consult it before redistributing any joined result. Labels are model-generated and were not human-verified at scale.
Citation
Please cite the ontology and the source corpus alongside this dataset:
AntonKorznikov/feature_stories
lmsys/lmsys-chat-1m
- Downloads last month
- 37