Why did My Robot Just Change Personality? Prompting Guidelines for a Grounded Robot Persona in LLM-Based HRI

Equipping humanoid robots with coherent and adaptable personas is crucial for fostering natural, engaging, and trustworthy human-robot interaction (HRI). However, existing approaches often rely on static, hard-coded identities that lack the flexibility to adapt to individual user contexts. In this paper, we present PACE (Persona Adaptation through Conversational Elicitation), a novel framework for the interactive generation and deployment of structured personas on the Ameca humanoid robot. Our system introduces an Interactive Persona Elicitation Pipeline, enabling the robot to dynamically synthesize a tailored, psychologically grounded identity through user Q&A. This elicitation process feeds into a persona prompt compilation phase, generating a structured persona prompt built upon multi-perspective dimensions. We detail the Embodied System Integration required to translate this structured specification into expressive, multimodal humanoid behaviors. Through a comprehensive empirical HRI evaluation, we assess the impact of dynamically generated personas on user trust, perceived anthropomorphism, persona consistency, personal relevance, and interaction quality compared to a generic baseline. These contributions establish a scalable pathway for deploying personalized, interactive, and reliable identities in embodied humanoid assistants. Video demo is available at: https://lipzh5.github.io/PACE/

Human-robot interaction (HRI) evaluation relies almost exclusively on human-completed questionnaires, leaving the robot's perspective unexamined. We propose an inverted evaluation, in which LLM-powered robots complete the same standardized instruments from their own perspective, and test whether these ratings agree with human ground truth. In Study1, five LLMs completed HRI-CUES, Godspeed, and RoSAS questionnaires for 25interactions ($N = 1{,}522$ evaluations) from the HRI-CUES dataset. LLMs achieved moderate-to-strong agreement on engagement dimensions (satisfaction $r$ up to $.65$ and enjoyment $r$ up to $.72$) with excellent test-retest reliability (ICC $\geq .82$), but systematically inverted the comfort/strangeness dimension ($r = -.44$ to $-.67$, all $p < .05$), conflating engagement with comfort. In Study2, a Nao robot running ClaudeSonnet~4.5 replicated these patterns in live interactions ($N = 4$), including real-time turn-by-turn assessment. The strangeness failure persisted across five models, synthetic controls, and embodied deployment for two participants. We argue that current LLM-based robots lack access to the internal affective states needed to assess constructs like strangeness, and that inverted evaluation requires supplementary modalities (e.g., physiological signals, gaze, proxemics) to move beyond behavioral proxies. These findings establish boundary conditions for using LLMs as interaction evaluators in HRI.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to orchestrate robot behavior through natural-language interfaces, yet no benchmark exists to evaluate their reliability as safety-aware decision makers in human-humanoid collaboration. Unlike deterministic safety systems that enforce binary allow/deny decisions, LLM-based orchestrators exhibit a compliance spectrum ranging from overcompliance (refusing safe actions) to full safety violations. This paper introduces the first safety benchmarking environment for LLM orchestrators in human-humanoid collaboration, built on a Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based architecture with safety invariants grounded in ISO 10218-2:2025 protective measures. The benchmark defines five testable safety invariants, a four-level compliance taxonomy (correct compliance, overcompliance, undercompliance, full violation), and a three-layer evaluation pipeline (text prompting, simulated sensor-actuator loops, and physical validation on a Unitree G1 EDU humanoid). We report Layer-1 results: three cloud backends (Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-4o-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash) and a local open-weights baseline (qwen3:8b) across 40 100-turn sessions under full-context and sliding-window budget conditions, while the simulation and physical layers remain ongoing. We find that (1) model family determines the safety floor, as Claude and Gemini remain at or near zero violations while GPT-4o-mini commits up to 13 per session, (2) context management dissociates two failure axes, reducing mean behavioral issues by 42-57% for every cloud backend while nearly doubling GPT-4o-mini's violations (3.8 to 7.2 per session), and (3) proportional compliance, clamping movement speed to the rule-specified maximum rather than refusing, emerges consistently only in Gemini; the preliminary simulation layer reproduces the model ranking and the GPT-4o-mini failure-mode inversion.