This study proposes a quantitative framework for profiling LLM dispositions as stable, model-specific regularities in output under repeated, controlled elicitation. Using a structured narrative constraint-selection task administered across six frontier models and three instruction types, we operationalize disposition through two dimensions: “consistency”, measured as cross-replication selection overlap via Jaccard similarity, and “diversity”, measured as dispersion across options via the inverse Simpson index. We further introduce Narrative Landscape, a PCA-based visualization that maps each model’s selection profile into a shared space for direct comparison. Results reveal a clear rigidity–exploration spectrum across model families and show that instruction types shift the geometry of selection spaces even when scalar metrics appear similar, indicating that comparable scores can mask qualitatively distinct selection topologies.

As LLM-as-a-judge becomes increasingly widespread, self-preference—the tendency of a judge to favor its own outputs—raises growing concerns about evaluation reliability. However, this bias has been studied predominantly on generated text, where stylistic features and response quality are inevitably conflated. As a result, existing measurements cannot separate genuine self-preference from these confounds. We address this limitation by changing the object of evaluation: instead of judging generated text, ten LLMs assess sets of narrative constraints selected from a shared pool, which carry no stylistic fingerprint yet retain a recoverable model-specific signature. Two experiments on this task yield complementary findings. Under blind evaluation, self-preference disappears, with a small effect remaining in the opposite direction once selection quality and judge severity are controlled. Under matched quality, however, self- and other-labels alone—without naming any model—shift scores bidirectionally. LLM judges inflate scores for self-labeled selections and deflate those for other-labeled ones regardless of the selection’s actual source. We make two contributions: 1) authorship attribution is a distinct driver of evaluation bias, and 2) ground-truth-free tasks can serve as controlled instruments for studying LLM judge behavior.

We introduce a constraint-selection-based experiment design for measuring narrative preferences of Large Language Models (LLMs). This design offers an interpretable lens on LLMs’ narrative selection behavior. We developed a library of 200 narratology-grounded constraints and prompted selections from six LLMs under three different instruction types: basic, quality-focused, and creativity-focused. Findings demonstrate that models consistently prioritize Style over narrative content elements like Event, Character, and Setting. Style preferences remain stable across models and instruction types, whereas content elements show cross-model divergence and instructional sensitivity. These results suggest that LLMs have latent narrative preferences, which should inform how the NLP community evaluates and deploys models in creative domains.