ConvoDrift: A Multi-Turn Conversational Dataset for Modeling Stylistic Tone Evolution
Organizations: Informatics Institute of Technology, Sri Lanka · Independant Researcher, Sri Lanka · National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia · Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine (LCSB), University of Luxembourg
Abstract
The evolution of linguistic style in conversations is an underexplored issue in NLP. Most style-control datasets focus on sentences or assume a static style throughout, missing the dynamic shifts that occur as user preferences change during interactions. We introduce ConvoDrift, a dataset designed to model progressive stylistic conversational tone drift under fixed semantic intent. It is built on 15,727 shared multi-turn conversational structures for adaptation and persona-conditioned alignment methods. It consists of six prompt-response pairs per conversation, each with the annotation of style drift and style direction labels. These pairs cover a range of communication genres. We further derive a complementary pairwise dataset by pairing semantically equivalent but stylistically distinct responses and annotating persona-conditioned preferences using five distinct style communication personas, enabling the controlled study of personalisation and pluralistic alignment in language tone. In addition to dataset construction, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation involving human validation, LLM-as-judge assessment, and automatic lexical and semantic evaluations. Across seven Likert criteria annotated by three human annotators, the average Krippendorff's alpha is 0.88, and our lexical and semantic analyses show that drift events induce lexical changes while preserving semantic similarity.
Figures & tables
| Communication genre | Count |
|---|---|
| Business email | 2,997 |
| Casual email | 3,246 |
| Quotes/Wishes | 3,340 |
| LinkedIn post | 3,150 |
| Tweet | 2,994 |
| Persona | Description |
|---|---|
| Task-First | Focuses on efficiency, clarity, and structured reasoning, prioritising actionable outcomes with minimal unnecessary elaboration. |
| Relationship-First | Emphasises warmth, empathy, and cooperative language to support positive and sustainable interpersonal interactions. |
| Authority-First | Communicates with confidence and decisiveness, favouring clear direction, assertive tone, and leadership-oriented language. |
| Calm & Careful | Uses measured, precise language to minimise risk, ensure safety, and promote stable and cautious decision-making. |
| Expressive & Energetic | Engages with enthusiasm and vivid language, favouring expressive phrasing that creates excitement and momentum. |
| Criterion | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|
| Tone consistency and drift annotation accuracy | 0.763 | [0.732, 0.794] |
| Tone direction label accuracy | 0.777 | [0.751, 0.803] |
| Drift distribution realism | 0.891 | [0.853, 0.926] |
| Fluency and clarity | 0.946 | [0.916, 0.973] |
| Cross-turn coherence | 0.964 | [0.939, 0.985] |
| Prompt-following accuracy | 0.900 | [0.863, 0.936] |
| Similarity Type | n | Mean | Median | Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjacent ( SBERT ) | 2500 | 0.8993 | 0.9207 | 0.3287 |
| Anchor ( SBERT ) | 3000 | 0.8903 | 0.9034 | 0.2382 |
| End-to-Start ( SBERT ) | 492 | 0.8519 | 0.8715 | 0.4423 |
| Genre | #Convs | Mean | Median | Min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business email | 93 | 0.9123 | 0.9255 | 0.7594 |
| Casual email | 100 | 0.8551 | 0.8679 | 0.6223 |
| LinkedIn post | 99 | 0.8842 | 0.8919 | 0.7380 |
| Quotes/Wishes | 100 | 0.7739 | 0.7971 | 0.4423 |
| Tweet | 100 | 0.8385 | 0.8580 | 0.5517 |
| Genre | Type | n | ROUGE-L | Jaccard-1 | Jaccard-2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business email | Within (Drift=False) | 6,242 | 0.606 | 0.543 | 0.374 |
| Boundary (Drift=True) | 8,742 | 0.538 | 0.469 | 0.281 | |
| Casual email | Within (Drift=False) | 7,031 | 0.684 | 0.639 | 0.501 |
| Boundary (Drift=True) | 9,199 | 0.492 | 0.457 | 0.267 | |
| LinkedIn post | Within (Drift=False) | 6,823 | 0.686 | 0.624 | 0.508 |
| Boundary (Drift=True) | 8,927 | 0.393 | 0.342 | 0.162 |
| Model | Stability | Sensitivity | Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entropy | Formal Rate | |||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0.990 | 0.533 | 0.853 | 0.542 |
| Gemini 2.5 flash | 0.942 | 0.504 | 0.868 | 0.581 |
| GPT-5 Mini | 0.932 | 0.483 | 0.886 | 0.585 |
| GPT-5 | 0.956 | 0.442 | 0.884 | 0.604 |
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| A | B | C | D | E | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.00 | -0.26 | 0.49 | 0.51 | -0.29 |
| B | -0.26 | 1.00 | -0.36 | -0.29 | 0.38 |
| C | 0.49 | -0.36 | 1.00 | 0.34 | -0.24 |
| D | 0.51 | -0.29 | 0.34 | 1.00 | -0.66 |
| E | -0.29 | 0.38 | -0.24 | -0.66 | 1.00 |