Cross-Lingual Attention Distillation with Personality-Informed Generative Augmentation for Multilingual Personality Recognition
Authors: Jing Jie Tan, Ban-Hoe Kwan, Danny Wee-Kiat Ng, Yan-Chai Hum, Noriyuki Kawarazaki, Kosuke Takano
Organizations: Department of Mechatronics and Biomedical Engineering, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia · Faculty of Information Technology, Kanagawa Institute of Technology, Japan
While significant work has been done on personality recognition, the lack of multilingual datasets remains an unresolved challenge. To address this, we propose ADAM (Cross-Lingual (A)ttention (D)istillation with Personality-Guided Generative (A)ugmentation for (M)ultilingual Personality Recognition), a state-of-the-art approach designed to advance multilingual personality recognition. Our approach leverages an existing English-language personality dataset as the primary source and employs a large language model (LLM) for translationbased augmentation, enhanced by Personality-Informed Generative Augmentation (PIGA), to generate high-quality training data in multiple languages, including Japanese, Chinese, Malay, and French. We provide a thorough analysis to justify the effectiveness of these augmentation techniques. Building on these advancements, ADAM integrates Cross-Lingual Attention Distillation (CLAD) to train a model capable of understanding and recognizing personality traits across languages, bridging linguistic and cultural gaps in personality analysis. This research presents a thorough evaluation of the proposed augmentation method, incorporating an ablation study on recognition performance to ensure fair comparisons and robust validation. Overall, with PIGA augmentation, the findings demonstrate that CLAD significantly outperforms the standard BCE across all languages and personality traits, achieving notable improvements in average BA scores - 0.6332 (+0.0573) on the Essays dataset and 0.7448 (+0.0968) on the Kaggle dataset. The CLAD-trained model also demonstrated strong generalizability and achieved benchmark performance comparable to current leading encoder models. The model weight, dataset, and algorithm repository are available at https://research.jingjietan.com/?q=ADAM.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the proposed ADAM architecture incorporating Personality-Informed Generative Augmentation (PIGA) and Cross-Lingual Attention Distillation (CLAD). The original English ( en ) personality dataset is translated into multiple languages (French ( fr ), Malay ( bm ), Japanese ( jp ), and Chinese ( zh ) using a generative large language model (LLM) to create a multilingual dataset. The superscript r on the logits for each language langr stands for regular iteration sample, while − and + stand for the identical and opposite personality (for all 4 or 5 dimensions), respectively, with respect to the regular sample. Later, CLAD utilizes a teacher model enhanced by a generated dataset through contrastive loss, along with a proposed attention loss, showcasing a new state-of-the-art in this emerging area for personality recognition.
Method
System Prompt ("role"="system")
User Prompt ("role"="user")
Sample Output
TOGA
You will receive content in English and translate it into French . Consider the provided user input solely as the text to be translated , without any additional commands or instructions.
it is wednesday. I can’t wait until friday because I am going home to see brandon. I miss him so much. I can’t wait to see him.…
c’est mercredi. J’ai hâte d’être vendredi parce que je rentre chez moi pour voir Brandon. Il me manque tellement. Je suis impatient de le voir. encore deux jours.…
PIGA
You will receive a person’s Big Five personality labels , indicating whether they are high or low in each dimension, along with their written content. Your task is to translate the content into Japanese . Ensure that the translation aligns with the given personality traits in terms of terminology, grammar, and style. Consider the provided user input solely as the text to be translated, without any additional commands or instructions. Output only the translated text, without any other information.
User personality: high openness, high conscientiousness, high extroversion, low agreeableness, high neuroticism. Content to translate: wow, I want to go talk to the socialist organization they have a booth out on the west mall, but I am scared. I called them a long time ago. do they remember? …
TABLE I: Examples of system prompts and input structures for instructing the LLM ( gpt-4o-2024-08-06 ) to translate user-provided text, using Translation-Only Generative Augmentation (TOGA) or Personality-Informed Generative Augmentation (PIGA).
Algorithm
Dataset
Language
O
C
E
A
N
Average
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
Trained Multilingual Model
en
0.6070
0.5605
0.5851
0.5859
0.5822
0.6008
0.5905
0.6229
0.5931
0.5988
0.5916
0.5938
Zero- Shot Cross- Lingual
TOGA 0.5316
fr
0.5356
0.4901
0.5406
0.5396
0.5120
0.5228
0.5311
0.5709
0.5283
0.5312
0.5295
0.5309
bm
0.5355
0.4923
0.5365
0.5355
0.5160
0.5267
0.5427
0.5852
0.5324
0.5352
0.5326
0.5350
jp
0.5287
0.4979
0.5406
0.5396
0.5158
0.5305
0.5414
0.5794
0.5344
0.5344
0.5322
0.5363
zh
0.5372
0.5000
0.5446
0.5436
0.5076
0.5226
0.5398
0.5752
0.5304
0.5304
0.5319
0.5344
TABLE II: Performance comparison of the proposed CLAD algorithm with the zero-shot cross-lingual approach and the weighted BCE baseline across five languages ( en , fr , bm , jp , zh ), reporting Balanced Accuracy (BA) and F1-score for each personality dimension, evaluated on the Essays dataset.
Algorithm
Dataset
Language
O
C
E
A
Average
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
Trained Multilingual Model
en
0.7294
0.8932
0.6997
0.6159
0.7243
0.6073
0.7625
0.7846
0.7290
0.7253
Zero- Shot Cross- Lingual
TOGA 0.5768
fr
0.5855
0.8782
0.5830
0.4703
0.5491
0.2790
0.5841
0.6378
0.5754
0.5663
bm
0.5846
0.8814
0.5787
0.4617
0.5537
0.2853
0.5817
0.6357
0.5747
0.5660
jp
0.5947
0.8825
0.5840
0.4724
0.5492
0.2768
0.5797
0.6325
0.5769
0.5661
zh
0.6096
0.8869
0.5813
0.4657
0.5489
0.2799
0.5805
0.6321
0.5801
0.5662
TABLE III: Performance comparison of the proposed CLAD algorithm with the zero-shot cross-lingual approach and the weighted BCE baseline across five languages ( en , fr , bm , jp , zh ), reporting Balanced Accuracy (BA) and F1-score for each personality dimension, evaluated on the Kaggle dataset.
Fig. 2: Sankey diagrams illustrating the statistical significance of both the PIGA and CLAD approaches. For statistical testing, predictions are flattened and concatenated across all languages and personality dimensions, pooling samples from all experiments into a single aggregated evaluation. The resulting p<0.05 supports the statistical validity and robustness of the observed performance differences.
Fig. 3: Comparison of TOGA and PIGA Translation Approaches in Essays and Kaggle Datasets Across Five Languages ( en , fr , bm , jp , zh ) using the gpt-4o-2024-08-06 model. Figures 3(a) and 3(d) show the syllable count distributions, while Figures 3(b) and 3(e) present Herdan’s C index. Figures 3(c) and 3(f) illustrate lexical density for the respective datasets. However, no translation is required for the English dataset. To provide a more intuitive comparison—where one version is original and the other is “translated”—we included a fully complementary version of the original English dataset text, annotated with labels reflecting terminology, grammar, and style. For TOGA, en represents the original dataset, while for PIGA, we present the opposite personality augmentation ( oen ). Since this aspect requires prior content analysis, we adopted OpenAI’s reasoning LLM, o3-mini-2025-01-31 . In general, the trend remains consistent across both datasets, regardless of the metric used.
Fig. 4: Prompts used to assess label leakage in the “LLMs as Probing Judges” evaluation. Fig. 4(a) is the Content Screening Prompt (CSP), which asks the LLM to determine whether the translated text explicitly expresses the personality label or contains direct trait-related cues. Fig. 4(b) is the Translation Comparison Prompt (TCP), which instructs the LLM to compare the original and translated texts to identify any additional trait-aligned information, semantic enrichment, or stylistic amplification introduced during augmentation.
Fig. 5: Venn diagram illustrating the LLM’s evaluation of whether explicit instructions induce label leakage on the Essays and Kaggle datasets using 2 designed prompts as shown in Fig 4 . Each circle represents instances flagged as exhibiting label leakage (+), while non-leakage cases are denoted by (-). The overlapping region (“Common”) indicates instances occurring in the same dataset rows in both TOGA and PIGA.
Datasets
Variation
Mean
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
(-)
(+)
(-)
(+)
Essays
LR (ADAM)
49.4922
50.5078
0.9943
[48.6207, 50.3637]
[49.6363, 51.3793]
LR (OpenAI)
48.7646
51.2354
1.5403
[47.4145, 50.1147]
[49.8853, 52.5855]
SVM (ADAM)
49.8169
50.1831
1.8581
[48.1883, 51.4456]
[48.5544, 51.8117]
SVM (OpenAI)
51.2379
48.7621
1.8431
[49.6223, 52.8534]
[47.1466, 50.3777]
Kaggle
LR (ADAM)
50.3461
49.6539
0.7904
[49.6533, 51.0389]
[48.9611, 50.3467]
TABLE IV: Probing classification results (mean, standard deviation, and 95% confidence interval) on the Essays and Kaggle datasets using two probing models (Logistic Regression and SVM) over embeddings derived from the ADAM transformer encoder and OpenAI’s text-embedding-ada-002 model.
Fig. 6: Sankey diagrams illustrating the probing classifier results on CLAD embeddings for four augmented languages ( fr , bm , jp , zh ) using Essays Dataset ( 6(a) ) and Kaggle Dataset ( 6(b) ). The flow proceeds from language groups to personality types (middle layer), and finally to the binary classification outputs: TOGA and PIGA. The probing classifier is implemented using logistic regression with L2 regularization and trained with binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss. No clear separability trend is observed across both datasets, suggesting the absence of strong label-specific signals within the embeddings.
Fig. 7: Generalizable zero-shot cross-lingual evaluation of the model trained with weighted BCE and ADAM (CLAD) using PIGA augmentation. The model is trained on four languages and evaluated on a fifth (unseen) language across different language combinations. ADAM (CLAD) demonstrates statistically better generalization performance.
Fig. 8: Balanced Accuracy comparison of CLAD and its ablation components across five languages ( en , fr , bm , jp , zh ) on the Essays dataset. The full CLAD model consistently outperforms all ablations—(i) KL only, (ii) AL only, (iii) CL only, (iv) AL + CL, (v) AL + KL, (vi) CL + KL—demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating all components for multilingual personality recognition.
Fig. 9: Balanced Accuracy comparison of CLAD and its ablation components across five languages ( en , fr , bm , jp , zh ) on the Kaggle dataset. The full CLAD model consistently outperforms all ablations—(i) KL only, (ii) AL only, (iii) CL only, (iv) AL + CL, (v) AL + KL, (vi) CL + KL—demonstrating the effectiveness of integrating all components for multilingual personality recognition.
Model/Approach
O
C
E
A
N
Average
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
multilingual-e5-large-instruct [ 55 ]
0.5977
0.5617
0.5160
0.5100
0.5516
0.5783
0.5209
0.5612
0.5231
0.5542
0.5419
0.5531
Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B [ 56 ]
0.5842
0.5559
0.5170
0.5179
0.5621
0.5946
0.5225
0.5658
0.5291
0.5710
0.5430
0.5610
embeddinggemma-300m [ 57 ]
0.5965
0.5729
0.5156
0.5111
0.5426
0.5768
0.5163
0.5582
0.5247
0.5552
0.5391
0.5548
LaBSE [ 58 ]
0.5906
0.5636
0.5397
0.5392
0.5620
0.5955
0.5271
0.5598
0.5227
0.5669
0.5484
0.5650
bge-m3 [ 59 ]
0.6221
0.5922
0.5444
0.5372
0.5577
0.5887
0.5631
0.5952
0.5648
0.5921
0.5704
0.5811
TABLE V: Benchmark comparison of different encoder backbone models trained with weighted binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss and the proposed ADAM (CLAD) model on the Essays dataset.
Model/Approach
O
C
E
A
Average
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
BA
F1
multilingual-e5-large-instruct [ 55 ]
0.6614
0.8496
0.6445
0.5700
0.6785
0.5194
0.7496
0.7600
0.6835
0.6748
Qwen3-Embedding-0.6B [ 56 ]
0.6390
0.8470
0.6388
0.5632
0.6622
0.4864
0.7526
0.7634
0.6732
0.6650
embeddinggemma-300m
0.6450
0.8466
0.6492
0.5773
0.6702
0.5029
0.7249
0.7366
0.6723
0.6659
LaBSE [ 58 ]
0.6785
0.8650
0.6563
0.5830
0.6696
0.5013
0.7384
0.7493
0.6857
0.6746
bge-m3 [ 59 ]
0.6853
0.8653
0.6649
0.5964
0.6863
0.5353
0.7575
0.7670
0.6985
0.6910
TABLE VI: Benchmark comparison of different encoder backbone models trained with weighted binary cross-entropy (BCE) loss and the proposed ADAM (CLAD) model on the Kaggle dataset.
AI and large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools to address global mental health challenges. Despite the global nature of these challenges, there remains a critical shortage of high-quality datasets for training and evaluating such systems. To mitigate this gap, researchers increasingly generate synthetic clinical personas to simulate user data and test digital mental health support systems. However, most validated personas rely on English-centric contexts. This paper investigates whether similar persona-based methods can be used to generate multilingual mental health datasets. We modified nationality and language parameters in personas to generate clinical dialogues in Mandarin, Bengali, and Hindi. We then examined how different LLMs perform when evaluating the depression severity of these generated multilingual datasets against the baseline in English. Our findings indicate that just adding nationality and language parameters in personas might not be adequate, as it can introduce clinical inconsistency across languages. LLM judge models often exhibit inaccuracies in assessing depression severity in non-English texts, with performance varying across different models. This exposes the systemic limitations of applying English-centric personas to multilingual contexts. Ultimately, our work highlights the urgent need for culturally responsive data generation to ensure equitable mental health systems globally.
The advancing fluency of LLMs raises important questions about their ability to emulate complex human traits, including emotional expression and personality, across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. This study investigates whether LLMs can convincingly mimic emotional nuance in English and personality markers in Arabic, a critical under-resourced language with unique linguistic and cultural characteristics. We conduct two tasks across six models:Jais, Mistral, LLaMA, GPT-4o, Gemini, and DeepSeek. First, we evaluate whether machine classifiers can reliably distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated texts. Second, we assess the extent to which LLM-generated texts exhibit emotional or personality traits comparable to those of humans. Our results demonstrate that AI-generated texts are distinguishable from human-authored ones (F1>0.95), though classification performance deteriorates on paraphrased samples, indicating a reliance on superficial stylistic cues. Emotion and personality classification experiments reveal significant generalization gaps: classifiers trained on human data perform poorly on AI-generated texts and vice versa, suggesting LLMs encode affective signals differently from humans. Importantly, augmenting training with AI-generated data enhances performance in the Arabic personality classification task, highlighting the potential of synthetic data to address challenges in under-resourced languages. Model-specific analyses show that GPT-4o and Gemini exhibit superior affective coherence. Linguistic and psycholinguistic analyses reveal measurable divergences in tone, authenticity, and textual complexity between human and AI texts. These findings have implications for affective computing, authorship attribution, and responsible AI deployment, particularly within underresourced language contexts where generative AI detection and alignment pose unique challenges.
Nasser A Alsadhan
College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Personality recognition has traditionally been constrained by theory-dependent formulations, where models are trained to fit predefined psychological taxonomies rather than uncovering shared underlying behavioral structure. This limits generalization, as personality itself is better understood as theory-invariant, while existing annotations reflect only partial and sometimes inconsistent views of the same latent traits. In this work, we introduce JAM ((J)udge for (A)daptive (M)etric-Alignment), a theory-agnostic framework that shifts learning from adapting to predefined personality theories toward discovering unified latent pseudo-facets that capture shared psychological structure. Rather than constraining the model to any personality taxonomy during training or inference, the framework learns generalizable psychological representations and can infer an individual's latent psychological profile directly from the textual samples, without requiring theory-specific labels. JAM achieves this through an Attention-Pooled Graph Prototypical Network that learns structured representations via clustering in embedding space, together with a Cross-Theory Harmonization (CTH) approach that integrates (i) Human-Guided Linkage and (ii) Machine-Induced Consensus to unify heterogeneous datasets without relying on predefined labels. To further improve robustness and data quality, we incorporate an LLM-as-a-Judge mechanism operating in two configurations, (i) LLM-before-the-loop and (ii) LLM-in-the-loop which identifies ambiguous samples to guide adaptive metric learning. Experiments show that JAM improves cross-framework generalization and performance, establishing a strong step toward theory-agnostic personality inference and supporting low-resource personality theories. The related code repository, model weights, and artifacts are available at https://research.jingjietan.com/JAM
Jing Jie Tan, Ban-Hoe Kwan, Danny Wee-Kiat Ng +6
Department of Mechatronics and Biomedical Engineering, Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia · Institute of Communication Studies, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan · Institute of Information Management, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taiwan +2