Do AI Personas Grow? Analyzing and Benchmarking Personality Evolution in LLM Agents After Life Events
Authors: Ming Wang, Peidong Wang, Xiaocui Yang, Daling Wang, Shi Feng, Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah, Ee-Peng Lim
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China · School of Computing and Information Systems, Singapore Management University, Singapore
Personality-conditioned LLM agents (PC-Agents) are increasingly used in emotional support, social simulation, and role-playing, motivating the development of lifelong agents that remain coherent over extended interactions. A key component of such coherence is personality evolution: agents should undergo plausible, psychology-grounded changes as they experience life events in different contexts. Although prior work shows that LLM personalities can shift under contextual perturbations, how these shifts vary across traits, events, personas, and models remains poorly understood. We study event-induced personality change after 11 major life events, using the Big Five traits as a psychometric anchor and interpreting the resulting trajectories against longitudinal evidence from human personality psychology. Across four diagnostic axes, PC-Agents exhibit measurable trait shifts at similar rates for event-trait pairs with and without documented human change directions. Even when shifts follow the expected direction, their magnitudes usually fall below human effect-size ranges. Gender and cultural-region prompts show little moderating effect, while persona-level dispersion is compressed three- to four-fold relative to human samples. To enable systematic comparison, we introduce BFI-Adapt, a reusable benchmark for scoring the directional fidelity of event-induced personality change, and use it to rank 14 models. A validation suite shows that the measured shifts exceed no-event retest noise, remain stable under independently paraphrased prompts, exhibit limited and model-dependent convergence with scenario-based behavioral choices, and persist across intervening unrelated dialogue. Together, these checks establish the measured trajectories as robust event-conditioned response patterns. Our results suggest that current PC-Agents simulate the mean of human personality dynamics, but not its shape.
While LLM agents have demonstrated remarkable task-oriented abilities such as planning, reasoning, and action, few works have treated them as complete human personalities where emotional dimensions hold equal importance. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark to systematically assess whether LLM agents can simulate coherent, human-like psychology. Specifically, our benchmark constructs 11 diverse human characters grounded in orthogonal Big Five personality traits, with each profile deeply integrated with 1,000 structured autobiographical-style episodic memories distributed across theory-grounded developmental life stages. To rigorously evaluate the psychological manifestations of LLMs, we designed a curated suite of 64 decision-making scenarios, guided by the DIAMONDS taxonomy, a psychological framework that characterizes situations along eight dimensions: Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, and Sociality. By subjecting agents to varying scenarios, the benchmark evaluates whether they can consolidate their innate personality traits and autobiographical memories to make behavioral decisions that are consistent with their specific psychological profiles. After systematic human validation and filtering, we obtained a benchmark consisting of 673 multiple-choice questions (MCQs). We believe this benchmark provides a principled and scalable testbed for studying human-like emotions, personality consistency, and value-consistent behavioural decision-making in LLM-based agents.
Large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs) are now ubiquitous, creating new opportunities for AI-mediated behavior change. Their capacity to project nuanced personalities and adopt diverse metaphorical roles raises a design question: how should an agent's persona and personality be calibrated to the moment? Recent evidence suggests that (i) moderate personality expression outperforms low or high extremes on trust, enjoyment, and intention to adopt in goal-oriented tasks, and (ii) context-appropriate metaphors outperform static one-note assistants on user experience and uptake. Yet most CAs still fix both persona and style, risking misalignment when dynamics, urgency, and formality vary, for example in medical information seeking, fitness coaching, and reflective learning. We propose a Fluid Personality Framework that jointly adapts (1) the agent's metaphorical persona, such as coach, tutor, librarian, or tool, and (2) its personality expression intensity, low, medium, or high, as a function of task context, user goals and traits, and situational urgency. We sketch the framework and its core design dimensions.
Can large language models reliably express a human-like personality, or are they merely mimicking surface cues without a stable underlying profile? To investigate this, we induce personality in LLMs by fine-tuning them on the long-form essays, where each essay is associated with a target Big Five personality profile. We then evaluate the stability and fidelity of the induced personality using the IPIP-NEO questionnaire. Specifically, we ask: (i) does post-training (SFT, DPO, ORPO) stabilize questionnaire scores under prompt rephrasings, and (ii) can it induce target Big Five profiles from unguided essays? Our results demonstrate that fine-tuning consistently reduces variance in questionnaire responses across five models, directly mitigating the evaluation fragility reported in pre-trained models. However, this newfound stability reveals a more fundamental limitation: accuracy on the full five-dimensional profile remains near chance, even when single-trait scores improve. This indicates that unguided essays lack the cues needed for faithful personality expression. We therefore argue for scenario-grounded datasets or interactive elicitation that accumulates test-aligned evidence over time.