Controlling and Assessing Appropriate Persona Use in LLM-based Dialogue Generation

Large Language Models (LLMs) reveal inherent and distinctive personas through dialogue. However, most existing persona discovery approaches rely on surface-level lexical or stylistic cues, treating dialogue as a flat sequence of tokens and failing to capture the deeper discourse-level structures that sustain persona consistency. To address this limitation, we propose a novel analytical framework that interprets LLM dialogue through bridging inference -- implicit conceptual relations that connect utterances via shared world knowledge and discourse coherence. By modeling these relations as structured knowledge graphs, our approach captures latent semantic links that govern how LLMs organize meaning across turns, enabling persona discovery at the level of discourse coherence rather than surface realizations. Experimental results across multiple reasoning backbones and target LLMs, ranging from small-scale models to 80B-parameter systems, demonstrate that bridging-inference graphs yield significantly stronger semantic coherence and more stable persona identification than frequency or style-based baselines. These results show that persona traits are consistently encoded in the structural organization of discourse rather than isolated lexical patterns. This work presents a systematic framework for probing, extracting, and visualizing latent LLM personas through the lens of Cognitive Discourse Theory, bridging computational linguistics, cognitive semantics, and persona reasoning in large language models. Codes are available at https://github.com/JiSoo-Yang/Persona_Bridging.git

As large language models are increasingly deployed to simulate diverse human characters, ensuring persona fidelity, defined as the extent to which an agent's behavior consistently reflects the psychological and stylistic characteristics of a target persona, has become a critical requirement. However, existing evaluation paradigms primarily rely on either holistic LLM-based judges, which are prone to "holistic appraisal hallucination'', or static psychometric inventories, which fail to capture the context-dependent fidelity required in dynamic dialogue. To address these limitations, we propose PRISM (Persona Reasoning with Inverse SFL-based Modeling), a psycholinguistically grounded framework that reformulates persona fidelity evaluation as a structured inverse inference task. Inspired by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), PRISM decomposes persona fidelity into three functional dimensions: Task Framing, Interpersonal Stance, and Linguistic Style. It estimates dimension-specific evidence over a persona-conditioned label space and aggregates these signals into an interpretable and auditable evaluation process. Experiments show that PRISM yields more accurate and stable judgements than traditional holistic judging, providing a more reliable framework for persona fidelity evaluation.

Large language model (LLM) evaluators are increasingly used to assess personalized assistants, yet whether they can reliably judge personalization has rarely been tested. We introduce PersEvalBench, a benchmark testing whether an evaluator can recognize appropriate and inappropriate uses of user history. It contains 403 multi-episode scenarios where user information should persist, transfer, or cease to apply. The benchmark covers nine controlled error subtypes across three families: under-personalization, over-personalization, and misapplied-state errors. Human audits confirm that generated errors match their intended types and that the prescribed uses of user information are reasonable. Across five LLM evaluators, recognition of controlled personalization errors remains limited even with the full dialogue history. On the human-evaluated subset, under-personalization shows the largest gap: humans recognize 94.4% of these errors, compared with 63.9% for the strongest reported evaluator. Evaluators often recognize that a response is problematic but reverse the error direction, mistaking failure to follow an applicable preference (UNDER) for use of an inapplicable preference (OVER). Easier evidence access offers little help: highlighting the relevant history turns raises error recognition only slightly, suggesting that the remaining difficulty lies in judging what role that information should play in the response.