FOCUS: Decoupling Expert Personas in LLMs to Enhance Domain Expert Capabilities

Persona prompting is widely used to steer large language models, yet its practical value remains unclear. Prior work often evaluates persona prompting using aggregate scores, making it difficult to determine whether expert-role prompting consistently improves response quality or instead changes responses along different quality dimensions. We study this question through a controlled comparison of four prompting conditions across 1,140 open-ended questions spanning 38 expert roles and six domains: no role prompt, a generic domain-expert prompt, embedding-based role retrieval, and a hybrid retrieval method combining embedding search with LLM-based role selection. Aggregate results show only small overall differences between conditions. However, metric-level analysis reveals a consistent tradeoff that aggregate averages obscure: role prompting systematically increases expertise depth while reducing clarity. These effects are highly conditional rather than universal. Role prompting performs best on advisory questions and in domains such as medicine and psychology, where structured expert framing and risk communication are intrinsically valuable. In contrast, baseline prompting performs better on conceptual and explanatory questions in finance, legal, science, and technology domains, where concise plain-language explanation is more important. We further show that hybrid retrieval significantly improves over embedding-only role selection, although better role retrieval does not eliminate the broader expertise-depth versus clarity tradeoff. Overall, our findings suggest that persona prompting primarily reshapes response characteristics rather than broadly improving capability, and that multi-metric evaluation is necessary for understanding its effects.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by end users, yet existing personalization methods relying on static profiles or text-only signals fail to capture query-specific expertise variation. We present ExPerT, a query-wise personalization framework that adapts LLM responses to users' query domain expertise by combining semantic and behavioral cues. ExPerT consists of two key components: (i) a semantic-behavioral expertise inference module that jointly interprets query text and keystroke dynamics via in-context LLM prompting, and (ii) an expertise-conditioned response generation that adapts the level of detail, terminology, and conceptual complexity. Our user study with 40 participants and 1270 queries demonstrated that ExPerT reduced expertise inference error by 65.7% compared to the strongest baseline (MAE = 0.398 vs. 1.162) and improved response satisfaction by 17.52% (from 3.71 to 4.36) on a 5-point Likert scale.

Large language model personalization typically adapts outputs to user preferences and style but does not account for differences in user evaluation capacity across domains of expertise. This limitation can encourage Professional Domain Drift, where users rely on AI generated reasoning in domains they cannot reliably evaluate. We introduce Capability Conditioned Scaffolding, a typed framework that partitions expertise into strong, mixed, and weak domains and conditions intervention behavior on structured capability profiles. A pilot evaluation across multiple MMLU subsets and four LLM substrates shows consistent profile conditioned intervention behavior, including categorical inversion under profile swapping and selective activation in mixed domain risk zones. These findings suggest that capability aware scaffolding can support more reliable professional human AI collaboration beyond stylistic personalization.