Personality Latents: Conditioning Frozen Language Models on Individuals from Their Own Writing

Large language models exhibit recurring behavioural patterns -- personas -- that shape generalisation and safety, but we lack reliable tools for decomposing, measuring, and controlling them. Our central insight is to treat personas as positions in a space of behavioural traits, using the OCEAN framework to describe model personas in terms of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. We train low-rank adapters to amplify or suppress individual traits, and evaluate their effects using an LLM-judge calibrated against a human-validated panel, trait-specific multiple-choice benchmarks, and standard capability evaluations. Across six models from three families (4B-32B), we find that each adapter moves its target trait largely monotonically with scale, combines approximately additively with other adapters to construct mixed personas, and preserves performance on capability benchmarks at moderate scales. We further show that the induced trait axes affect safety-relevant behaviour in downstream evaluations: for example, moving along neuroticism and agreeableness axes affects frustration and sycophancy respectively. We also introduce an unsupervised psychometric pipeline that recovers four interpretable behavioural factors (tone, initiative, didacticism, epistemic caution) from model rollouts. Persona control can then be considered in terms of learning, scaling, and composing traits in weight space, providing a bridge between personality measurement, model editing, and safety.

Current methods for personality control in Large Language Models rely on static prompting or expensive fine-tuning, failing to capture the dynamic and compositional nature of human traits. We introduce PERSONA, a training-free framework that achieves fine-tuning level performance through direct manipulation of personality vectors in activation space. Our key insight is that personality traits appear as extractable, approximately orthogonal directions in the model's representation space that support algebraic operations. The framework operates through three stages: Persona-Base extracts orthogonal trait vectors via contrastive activation analysis; Persona-Algebra enables precise control through vector arithmetic (scalar multiplication for intensity, addition for composition, subtraction for suppression); and Persona-Flow achieves context-aware adaptation by dynamically composing these vectors during inference. On PersonalityBench, our approach achieves a mean score of 9.60, nearly matching the supervised fine-tuning upper bound of 9.61 without any gradient updates. On our proposed Persona-Evolve benchmark for dynamic personality adaptation, we achieve up to 91% win rates across diverse model families. These results provide evidence that aspects of LLM personality are mathematically tractable, opening new directions for interpretable and efficient behavioral control.

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.