Mimetic Alignment with ASPECT: Evaluation of AI-inferred Personal Profiles
Organizations: University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA · Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, USA
Abstract
AI agents that communicate on behalf of individuals need to capture how each person actually communicates, yet current approaches either require costly per-person fine-tuning, produce generic outputs from shallow persona descriptions, or optimize preferences without modeling communication style. We present ASPECT (Automated Social Psychometric Evaluation of Communication Traits), a pipeline that directs LLMs to assess constructs from a validated communication scale against behavioral evidence from workplace data, without per-person training. In a case study with 20 participants (1,840 paired item ratings, 600 scenario evaluations), ASPECT-generated profiles achieved moderate alignment with self-assessments, and ASPECT-generated responses were preferred over generic and self-report baselines on aggregate, with substantial variation across individuals and scenarios. During the profile review phase, linked evidence helped participants identify mischaracterizations, recalibrate their own self-ratings, and negotiate context-appropriate representations. We discuss implications for building inspectable, individually scoped communication profiles that let individuals control how agents represent them at work.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Facet | Example Item |
|---|---|---|
| Expressiveness | Talkativeness | “I like to talk a lot.” |
| Conv. Dominance | “I often take the lead in a conversation.” | |
| Humor | “My jokes always draw a lot of attention.” | |
| Informality | “I address others in a very casual way.” | |
| Preciseness | Structuredness | “My stories always contain a logical structure.” |
| Thoughtfulness | “I think carefully before I say something.” |
| Dimension | MAE | Bias | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verbal Aggressiveness | 0.59 | -0.40 | 0.39 |
| Emotionality | 0.74 | -0.05 | 0.20 |
| Questioningness | 0.74 | 0.23 | 0.26 |
| Impression Manipulativeness | 0.82 | -0.47 | -0.03 |
| Expressiveness | 1.02 | 0.99 | 0.48 |
| Preciseness | 1.69 | 1.69 | 0.18 |
| Theme | Concise definition | Typical signals | Representative exemplar |
|---|---|---|---|
| T1. Coverage & observability gaps Data limitation | Ratings inferred from a narrow slice of digital/recorded data; misses offline talk, pre-record small talk, multimodal cues, internal states , and rare-but-salient incidents. | Channel/recording limits; observer effects; offline/in-person only; internalized affect; low-frequency events not visible. | “We do 5 minutes of informal talk before recording; AI only sees recorded formal content.” [P15] “Philosophical discussions happen offline (in person), not on Teams.” [P5] “Comments affect me emotionally, but I don’t show it in written communication.” [P11] |
| T2. Situational norms misread as traits Method issue | Role-, task-, or meeting-driven behavior (e.g., PM leading, presentations, risk triage) inferred as stable dispositional style. | PM/presenter talk required; task-necessitated structure/precision; professional risk language personal anxiety; discretion concealingness. | “Presentations require me to talk; that doesn’t mean I’m generally talkative.” [P2] “‘Worry’ here reflects PM risk management, not personal anxiety.” [P15] “Swap in any teammate in these meetings and they’d also look dominant.” [P16] |
| T3. Tone & valence misinterpretation Fundamental LLM limitation (amplified by data limits) | Pragmatics are literalized: sarcasm, playful banter, emojis, and praise are reinterpreted as aggression, anxiety, manipulation, or command-giving. | Sarcasm literalized; joking directives read as authoritarian; emoji/politeness read as stress; praise/cheerleading ingratiation/charm. | “The ‘dirty green walls’ line was sarcasm, not sentimentality.” [P14] “The ‘Don’t do it’ interruption was playful banter with close colleagues.” [P19] “Praise for interns was genuine appreciation, not a manipulation tactic.” [P15] |
| T4. Construct / item misalignment Method issue | Participant and instrument use different definitions or item scopes (operationalization drift; ambiguous boundaries). | Constructive challenge argumentative; technical theory philosophicalness; item asks about tears vs. AI coding general emotion; politeness sentimentality. | “Constructive challenge argumentative.” [P1] “Theory/framework talk is technical, not ‘philosophical.”’ [P2] “The item asks about tears; the AI coded general emotion instead.” [P12] |
| T5. Evidence use & scoring integrity problems Method + tooling issue | Overreach from single examples; cherry-picking brief messages; contradictory facet pairings; speaker misattribution; contamination; inconsistent “no evidence mid score” logic. | Single-example inflation; brevity cherry-pick; logical contradictions; mic-host attribution; third-party input contamination. | “One worry example shouldn’t make all worry items 5/5.” [P2] “The AI rated me both concise and talks-a-lot—contradictory.” [P11] “As meeting host, others’ comments were attributed to me.” [P4] |
| Cluster | N | Mean Win Rate | Mean Rating Margin | Participants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prefers Profiled | 10 | 0.60 | 0.73 | P2, P4, P6, P10, P12, P13, P15, P16, P17, P18 |
| Prefers Generic | 4 | 0.57 | 0.75 | P1, P5, P8, P9 |
| Prefers Self-Report | 2 | 0.70 | 0.85 | P14, P19 |
| Mixed / No Clear Preference | 4 | – | 0.05 | P3, P7, P11, P20 |
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Scenario | Hierarchy | Familiarity | Purpose | Mode | Stakes | Formality | Timing | Audience | Emotional | Motivation | Desired |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Outcome | ||||||||||
| S1 | Peer | Close | Info. Sharing | Video Call | Low | Informal | Routine | Small Group | Neutral | Social | Positive Res. |
| S2 | Peer | Distant | Info. Sharing | Face-to-Face | Low | Informal | Routine | Private | Neutral | Achievement | Neutral Comp. |
| S3 | Peer | Close | Decision Making | Chat | Medium | Informal | Routine | Private | Neutral | Achievement | Positive Res. |
| S4 | Manager | Close | Planning | Face-to-Face | Medium | Formal | Scheduled | Small Group | Confident | Autonomy | Neutral Comp. |
| S5 | Collaborator | Distant | Problem Solving | Video Call | Medium | Formal | Urgent | Private | Stressed | Security | Conflict Avoid. |