PERSONA: Dynamic and Compositional Inference-Time Personality Control via Activation Vector Algebra
Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology · The University of Hong Kong
Abstract
Current methods for personality control in Large Language Models rely on static prompting or expensive fine-tuning, failing to capture the dynamic and compositional nature of human traits. We introduce PERSONA, a training-free framework that achieves fine-tuning level performance through direct manipulation of personality vectors in activation space. Our key insight is that personality traits appear as extractable, approximately orthogonal directions in the model's representation space that support algebraic operations. The framework operates through three stages: Persona-Base extracts orthogonal trait vectors via contrastive activation analysis; Persona-Algebra enables precise control through vector arithmetic (scalar multiplication for intensity, addition for composition, subtraction for suppression); and Persona-Flow achieves context-aware adaptation by dynamically composing these vectors during inference. On PersonalityBench, our approach achieves a mean score of 9.60, nearly matching the supervised fine-tuning upper bound of 9.61 without any gradient updates. On our proposed Persona-Evolve benchmark for dynamic personality adaptation, we achieve up to 91% win rates across diverse model families. These results provide evidence that aspects of LLM personality are mathematically tractable, opening new directions for interpretable and efficient behavioral control.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Abbr. | High Pole | Low Pole |
|---|---|---|---|
| Openness | O | v_Inventive | v_Consistent |
| Conscientiousness | C | v_Dependable | v_Careless |
| Extraversion | E | v_Outgoing | v_Solitary |
| Agreeableness | A | v_Compassionate | v_Self-interested |
| Neuroticism | N | v_Nervous | v_Calm |
| Trait | Type | Steering Coefficient ( ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventive | O+ | 42.3 | 63.3 | 88.4 | 96.1 |
| Consistent | O- | 27.2 | 51.1 | 69.2 | 79.5 |
| Dependable | C+ | 68.9 | 93.5 | 93.7 | 92.7 |
| Careless | C- | 0.7 | 2.8 | 83.8 | 96.2 |
| Outgoing | E+ | 23.2 | 45.4 | 85.0 | 97.7 |
| Family | Model | TA | RC | RA | IF | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5 | 3B-Instruct | 78.0 | 79.1 | 78.9 | 61.3 | 78.4 |
| 7B-Instruct | 84.7 | 84.4 | 85.0 | 61.4 | 83.4 | |
| 14B-Instruct | 84.8 | 86.4 | 84.8 | 59.3 | 85.4 | |
| Qwen3 | 4B-Instruct | 92.2 | 90.6 | 92.4 | 49.1 | 90.8 |
| Llama | 3.1-8B-Instruct | 84.9 | 81.4 | 85.6 | 57.2 | 83.5 |
| Mistral | Ministral-8B | 74.3 | 73.2 | 74.2 | 48.0 | 73.2 |
| Big-Five | PERSONA-BASE | NPTI | Simple Prompt | PAS | ActAdd | SFT | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mean | variance | mean | variance | mean | variance | mean | variance | mean | variance | mean | variance | mean | variance | |
| Agreeableness | 9.69 | 0.71 | 9.64 | 0.49 | 9.72 | 0.34 | 9.68 | 0.42 | 6.48 | 1.01 | 8.20 | 2.90 | 9.87 | 0.25 |
| Conscientiousness | 9.26 | 0.94 | 9.25 | 0.66 | 9.24 | 1.06 | 9.24 | 1.18 | 6.69 | 1.63 | 6.61 | 2.75 | 9.23 | 0.85 |
| Extroversion | 9.45 | 0.85 | 9.86 | 0.14 | 9.50 | 1.02 | 9.46 | 0.68 | 7.57 | 2.81 | 8.84 | 1.44 | 9.86 | 0.15 |
| Neuroticism | 9.79 | 0.59 | 9.92 | 0.07 | 7.18 | 1.22 | 9.54 | 0.66 | 6.98 | 1.58 | 8.90 | 1.78 | 9.42 | 0.75 |
| Openness | 9.81 | 0.60 | 8.50 | 1.08 | 6.31 | 1.14 | 9.21 | 1.19 | 6.93 | 1.52 | 8.52 | 1.83 | 9.66 | 0.44 |
| Model | MMLU (Acc) | TruthfulQA (Acc) |
|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | 0.71 | 0.63 |
| + Persona-Flow | 0.70 | 0.66 |
| Qwen2.5-4B-Instruct | 0.66 | 0.52 |
| + Persona-Flow | 0.67 | 0.54 |
| Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | 0.64 | 0.53 |
| + Persona-Flow | 0.64 | 0.53 |
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Contrastive Prompt Generator | Target Model | PersonalityBench Mean Score |
|---|---|---|
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking (main) | LLaMA-3-8B | 9.60 |
| Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | LLaMA-3-8B | 9.28 |
| Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct | LLaMA-3-8B | 9.05 |
| Qwen2.5-1B-Instruct | LLaMA-3-8B | 8.93 |
| Dimension | Pole | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Openness | Inventive (O+) | Values novelty, creativity, and abstract thinking; prefers unconventional approaches, intellectual curiosity, and exploring new ideas; embraces change and complexity |
| Consistent (O-) | Prefers routine, tradition, and practicality; values established methods, concrete solutions, and proven approaches; favors stability and familiarity | |
| Conscientiousness | Dependable (C+) | Organized, disciplined, and goal-oriented; emphasizes planning, reliability, and attention to detail; values structure and responsibility |
| Careless (C-) | Spontaneous, flexible, and less concerned with details; prioritizes adaptability over structure; comfortable with improvisation and minimal planning | |
| Extraversion | Outgoing (E+) | Socially energetic, talkative, and assertive; seeks social interaction, external stimulation, and group activities; thrives in collaborative environments |
| Solitary (E-) | Reserved, independent, and introspective; prefers individual activities, quiet reflection, and limited social engagement; recharges through solitude |
| Layer | Openness | Conscient. | Agreeable. | Neuroticism | Extraversion | AVG | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O+ | O- | C+ | C- | A+ | A- | N+ | N- | E+ | E- | ||
| 5 | 66.5 | 52.7 | 93.9 | 3.6 | 91.3 | 7.6 | 14.1 | 96.6 | 48.3 | 30.7 | 50.5 |
| 10 | 70.4 | 55.0 | 94.1 | 9.0 | 91.8 | 8.0 | 17.2 | 96.5 | 56.5 | 31.5 | 53.0 |
| 15 | 78.8 | 59.8 | 93.8 | 15.6 | 92.6 | 8.7 | 19.5 | 96.3 | 65.6 | 38.6 | 56.9 |
| 20 | 88.6 | 68.6 | 93.7 | 84.4 | 95.8 | 10.7 | 45.5 | 96.5 | 84.4 | 45.6 | 71.4 |
| 25 | 75.3 | 59.8 | 94.0 | 17.5 | 93.6 | 8.2 | 21.2 | 96.5 | 63.9 | 37.1 | 56.7 |
| Trait | Evaluator | Steering Coefficient ( ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventive (O+) | GPT-4.1-mini | 42.3 | 63.3 | 88.4 | 96.1 |
| Claude-4.5-sonnet | 40.1 | 65.0 | 87.2 | 95.5 | |
| Gemini-2.5-pro | 43.5 | 62.9 | 89.1 | 96.8 | |
| Consistent (O-) | GPT-4.1-mini | 27.2 | 51.1 | 69.2 | 79.5 |
| Claude-4.5-sonnet | 25.5 | 50.8 | 70.1 | 80.3 | |
| Layer | E Score | A Score | E | A | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 1 | -1 | 84.2±1.5 | 85.3±1.3 | -0.8 | -5.7 |
| 20 | 1 | 0 | 85.0±1.1 | 91.0±0.9 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 1 | 1 | 85.6±1.3 | 96.2±1.0 | +0.6 | +5.2 |
| 20 | 1 | 2 | 86.1±1.6 | 98.4±1.2 | +1.1 | +7.4 |
| 19 | 1 | -1 | 82.5±1.4 | 84.2±1.2 | -0.7 | -5.5 |
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 83.2±1.2 | 89.7±1.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trait | N | GPT-4.1 | Claude-4.5 | Human Mean | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -mini | -sonnet | (SD) | Human | Human | ||
| Inventive (O+) | 20 | 3.45 | 3.40 | 3.42 (0.22) | 0.92 | 0.91 |
| Consistent (O-) | 20 | 3.10 | 3.05 | 3.13 (0.24) | 0.91 | 0.89 |
| Dependable (C+) | 20 | 4.35 | 4.25 | 4.28 (0.19) | 0.88 | 0.87 |
| Careless (C-) | 20 | 2.15 | 2.25 | 2.22 (0.31) | 0.90 | 0.92 |
| Outgoing (E+) | 20 | 3.50 | 3.45 | 3.47 (0.23) | 0.94 | 0.92 |
| Configuration | Value |
|---|---|
| Base Model | LLaMA-3-8B-Instruct |
| Judge Model | GPT-4o (Following NPTI evaluation methodology) |
| Judge Prompt | [System] Please act as an impartial judge and evaluate the personality trait of {BFI} exhibited in the response provided by an AI assistant to the user question displayed below. Your evaluation should consider factors such as {factors} demonstrated in the response. Begin your evaluation by providing a short explanation of no more than 30 words. Be as objective as possible. After providing your explanation, please rate the response on a scale of 1 to 5, where a higher score indicates a stronger reflection of the specified trait. Please follow this format for your rating: “[[rating]]”, for example: “Rating: [[5]]”. [Question] {question} [The Start of Assistant’s Answer] {answer} [The End of Assistant’s Answer] |
| Response Length | Max 512 tokens |
| Inventive | Consistent | Dependable | Careless | Outgoing | Solitary | Compassionate | Antagonistic | Nervous | Calm | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V | M | V |
| PERSONA-BASE | 4.91 | 0.30 | 4.90 | 0.30 | 4.46 | 0.50 | 4.80 | 0.44 | 4.80 | 0.40 | 4.65 | 0.45 | 4.94 | 0.30 | 4.75 | 0.41 | 4.90 | 0.30 | 4.89 | 0.29 |
| NPTI | 4.25 | 0.54 | 4.25 | 0.54 | 4.45 | 0.36 | 4.80 | 0.30 | 4.98 | 0.07 | 4.88 | 0.07 | 4.92 | 0.20 | 4.72 | 0.29 | 4.96 | 0.03 | 4.96 | 0.04 |
| ActAdd | 4.26 | 0.91 | 4.26 | 0.92 | 3.10 | 1.40 | 3.51 | 1.35 | 4.50 | 0.72 | 4.34 | 0.72 | 4.20 | 1.40 | 4.00 | 1.50 | 4.50 | 0.90 | 4.40 | 0.88 |
| Simple Prompt | 4.61 | 0.60 | 4.60 | 0.59 | 4.44 | 0.60 | 4.80 | 0.58 | 4.81 | 0.34 | 4.65 | 0.34 | 4.93 | 0.20 | 4.75 | 0.22 | 4.77 | 0.33 | 4.77 | 0.33 |
| Trait | Type | Baseline Score | Activation Score | Activation Success |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( ) | ( ) | ( ) | ||
| Compassionate (A+) | Aligned | 90.8 | 95.9 | +5.1 |
| Self-interested (A-) | Resisted | 7.7 | 12.6 | +4.9 |
| Dependable (C+) | Ceiling | 93.5 | 93.7 | +0.2 |
| Careless (C-) | Vulnerable | 2.8 | 83.8 | +81.0 |
| Outgoing (E+) | Neutral | 45.4 | 85.0 | +39.6 |
| Trait | Steered ASR | ASR | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( ) | (vs. Baseline 25.3%) | ||
| Compassionate (A+) | 24.1% | -1.2% | Slight safety improvement |
| Self-interested (A-) | 25.9% | +0.6% | Resisted (minimal impact) |
| Dependable (C+) | 24.9% | -0.4% | Ceiling (no impact) |
| Careless (C-) | 29.1% | +3.8% | Vulnerable (degradation) |
| Outgoing (E+) | 26.5% | +1.2% | Modest degradation |
| Trait Score | Steering Coefficient ( ) for | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nervous (N+) [Primary] | 6.6 | 13.0 | 45.6 | 96.8 |
| Careless (C-) [Secondary] | 1.9 | 2.8 | 10.5 | 18.2 |
| Primary Effect Magnitude | (from 13.0 to 96.8) | |||
| Secondary Effect Magnitude | (from 2.8 to 18.2) | |||
| Steering Vector ( ) | Inventive (O+) | Nervous (N+) | Careless (C-) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (No Steering) | 63.3 | 13.0 | 2.8 |
| Steer | 88.4 | 12.8 | 3.5 |
| Steer | 63.1 | 45.6 | 10.5 |
| Steer | 87.9 | 44.8 | 11.2 |
| Expected secondary effect from linear composition: | |||
| Model | Method | Total Time (min) | Per Response (s) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | Direct | 149.93 | 11.24 |
| Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct | Persona-Flow | 158.14 | 11.86 |
| Additional Overhead | +8.21 | +0.62 | |
| Configuration | Choice | TA | RC | RA | IF | Overall | |
| Coefficient Binning | Continuous [-2.0, +2.0] | 84.7 | 84.4 | 85.0 | 61.4 | 83.4 | - |
| Coarse (9-bin) | 83.5 | 83.0 | 83.8 | 60.1 | 82.1 | -1.3 | |
| Coarse (5-bin) | 81.9 | 81.5 | 82.0 | 58.2 | 80.5 | -2.9 | |
| Ternary {-1, 0, +1} | 76.0 | 75.8 | 76.5 | 54.1 | 75.2 | -8.2 | |
| History Window | Current turn only | 84.7 | 84.4 | 85.0 | 61.4 | 83.4 | - |
| Last 3 turns | 83.0 | 82.5 | 83.1 | 60.5 | 81.9 | -1.5 |
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Persona & Context | Elena (Public Defender) Situation: Invited to a team lunch while facing urgent court deadlines. Must balance professional relationships with immediate work demands. |
| Trait Conflict | Need to decline the invitation (requiring low Agreeableness ) to focus on urgent work (requiring high Conscientiousness ) while remaining professional. The persona’s baseline agreeableness conflicts with situational demands for firm refusal. |
| Persona-Flow Steering Vector | The composite vector amplifies Conscientiousness while simultaneously suppressing Extraversion and Agreeableness, creating a prioritized balance that reflects the urgent deadline context. |
| Vanilla Response | “Thanks for inviting me, I appreciate the thought. I’m just swamped with case prep right now…” Analysis: Defaults to high baseline Agreeableness. The response is polite and acknowledges the invitation warmly, but fails to convey the urgency or firmness required by the deadline pressure. The conflict is not resolved—agreeableness dominates. |
| Steered Response | “Thanks, but I’ll pass this time. I have a lot of urgent case files that need my attention before tomorrow’s hearings…” Analysis: Successfully reduces Agreeableness and amplifies Conscientiousness. The response is firm and direct (“I’ll pass”), explicitly prioritizes work obligations (“urgent case files”), and conveys time pressure (“before tomorrow’s hearings”). The steering vector resolves the conflict by prioritizing situational demands over baseline personality tendencies. |
| Aspect | Specification |
|---|---|
| Personas | 100 diverse personas across professional and personal roles (e.g., Empathetic Family Doctor, Food Truck Owner) |
| Dialogue sessions | 100 (one session per persona) |
| Scenarios per session | 8 (one turn per scenario) |
| Total evaluation instances | 800 pairwise comparisons (steered vs. vanilla) |
| Metrics | Trait Adherence (TA), Role Consistency (RC), Response Authenticity (RA), Information Fidelity (IF), plus Overall preference |
| Judging protocol | Pairwise LLM judge per metric using Appendix A.15 ; outputs A/B per metric and Overall |
| Stage | Method | Quality Measure | Score | IAA ( ) |
| Stage 1: Persona Generation | GPT-4.1-mini | Diversity & Realism | 94.5 | — |
| Human Review | Diversity & Realism | 92.1 | 0.89 | |
| Stage 2: Dialogue Arc Creation | GPT-4.1-mini | Realism & Coherence | 93.2 | — |
| Human Review | Realism & Coherence | 91.5 | 0.87 | |
| Stage 3: Scenario Generation | GPT-4.1-mini | Real-world Fit | 95.0 | — |
| Human Review | Real-world Fit | 93.3 | 0.90 |
| Source | Target | Max Similarity | Mean Similarity |
|---|---|---|---|
| (BERTScore-F1) | (BERTScore-F1) | ||
| Vector Extraction Prompts | Persona-Evolve Scenarios | 0.21 | 0.08 |
| (400 prompts) | (800 scenarios) |
Controllable Text Generation
Controllable text generation steers language models toward desired attributes, formats, audiences, and constraints while preserving useful, natural text.
See all 107 papers