Persona-Guided LLM Agents for Task-Oriented Dialogue

LLMs are increasingly used in social simulations for socially interactive agents and robots, offering more flexibility than rule-based systems. However, even though they mimic human behaviour very well, there is a persistent alienness to them. This work investigates whether personality-aware fine-tuning can reduce this gap by improving the consistency and controllability of personality-conditioned dialogue generation compared with instruction prompting alone. We fine-tune two small open-weight LLMs, Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Ministral-8B-Instruct, using a corpus that combines personality-labelled social media posts and dialogues to create a personality-based dialogue engine for social simulation. The resulting models are evaluated across multiple social interaction scenarios using three independent LLM judges, which assess personality fidelity and provide evidence-based behavioral interpretations. We additionally quantify inter-rater agreement and lexical characteristics of the generated dialogue. Results indicate that fine-tuned models are not better at role-playing different personalities than their respective baseline models. However, low inter-rater agreement limits the confidence with which these results can be interpreted. Concerning the quality of generated texts, fine-tuned models are mostly comparable to the baselines, with fine-tuning improving the linguistic diversity of the Qwen models. While the results appear generally usable and the baseline models offer the best overall performance, future studies should place greater emphasis on the quality and domain alignment of training data for accurate personality role-playing.

Proactive task-oriented dialogue (TOD), such as outbound sales, demands a persuasive agent that actively probes the user's concerns and steers the conversation toward acceptance within a bounded number of turns. Yet post-trained LLMs are inherently conservative, and reward-shaping RL (e.g., GRPO) struggles since it only re-weights what an already passive policy samples. We show that conditioning on the user's latent concerns unlocks proactive capability that no amount of sampling can undermine, establishing these concerns as a pivotal training-time signal. To operationalize this finding, we build the Cognitive User Simulator, which models each user as a stratified persona comprising observable external traits and hidden internal concerns. The simulator produces faithful and diverse interactions, while emitting per-turn state dynamics that track persuasion progress. We then introduce Simulator-Induced Asymmetric-View Policy Optimization, which converts the modeled concerns and the simulation state transition into complementary training objectives: (1) Asymmetric On-Policy Self-Distillation that transfers concern-aware behavior from a privileged view of the same policy into its deployable, conversation-only view; and (2) State-Transition Policy Refinement ...

Persona prompting is widely used to construct user simulations with large language models (LLMs), yet it relies on a largely untested assumption: specifying one user attribute should change that attribute alone. We test this assumption and identify a systematic failure of selective control: across all eight black-box LLMs we audit, changing a target attribute also shifts responses on unspecified, non-target attributes. For example, describing a user as more risk-seeking shifts color choices, even though the prompt never mentions color; we term this cross-attribute influence. Semantic, contextual, and internal analyses collectively suggest that models treat a persona prompt as evidence about the user and extend the inferred profile to unspecified preferences, a process we call trait-conditioned completion. We next ask whether explicitly specifying non-target attributes restores selective control. When a non-target attribute is assigned a clear direction, models generally follow the declaration and suppress the target attribute's influence. However, when the same attribute is declared neutral, the target continues to affect choices across all five open-weight checkpoints, even when the model correctly reports the declared state. This disparity, the neutrality gap, demonstrates that successful persona following does not imply selective persona control, which additionally requires keeping non-target attributes stable. We operationalize this distinction with a three-state diagnostic that leaves the non-target attribute unspecified or declares it directional or neutral; because directional tests can be passed by simply following the stated persona, the neutral state reveals failures they miss. In a post hoc analysis of independent items, neutral declarations leave 51-81% of items target-sensitive, against at most 1 of 320 item-pole comparisons under directional ones.