Persona Prompting

Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as information intermediaries, yet measuring their political behavior remains fragile because questionnaire results mix model dispositions with measurement artifacts and response-elicitation biases. We introduce a robust Political Compass Test evaluation framework that samples 300 configurations across an eight-dimensional perturbation space varying language, framing, instructions, answer format, option order, and persona wording. We evaluate eight Gemma 3 and Qwen 3 models across 14 languages and three quantization levels, obtaining design-averaged political coordinates with quantified uncertainty. Most models lean Libertarian-Left on average, but instruction phrasing, language, and answer format significantly affect recovered coordinates. Cross-lingual differences primarily reflect coordinate drift rather than distinct cultural reasoning. Reverse-engineering the test also exposes axis-weighting imbalances and the collapse of degenerate responses toward the center, so near-origin estimates for the smallest models can reflect weak signal rather than centrism. Free-text reasoning and chat-then-classify elicitation alter recovered coordinates, and larger models show clearer persona separation, with a specific failure of the Authoritarian-Left persona to move most models in the intended social direction. In downstream tasks, persona effects are modest relative to model size and target group for hate-speech detection, while base and centrist prompts give the highest agreement for topic-level sentiment. Political role prompting therefore has measurable but task- and dataset-specific downstream effects.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to predict the responses of human participants in survey panels. Towards that goal, persona prompting has recently emerged as a technique to inform and align large pretrained language models. Persona prompting refers to the practice of using short textual descriptions of 'personas' in prompts to steer the LLM's generations. Personas describe individuals through different attributes such as their socio-demographics, attitudes, or behaviors, with the aim of aligning LLMs to produce responses that correlate with the corresponding human responses. Yet, recent work has produced mixed and partly conflicting results of persona prompting without clear patterns of success and failure. Among the few consistent findings is that the selection of persona attributes matters, and that using more attributes does not necessarily lead to better performance. It remains unclear how different attribute selection methods perform and how to choose among them. In this paper, we propose that observed human response variation of a survey question is a potential explanation for the mixed performance observed so far. In addition, we compare the performance of persona prompting associated with different methods for selecting persona attributes. We evaluate these methods on four different (general) social surveys across two countries, six LLMs, and twenty prediction tasks per survey. Our work helps to identify when persona prompting can be expected to be useful in survey prediction tasks, and provides new insights on the effectiveness of different attribute selection methods for LLM-based survey prediction using persona prompting.

Do people perceive the same facial expression in the same way? Should we expect vision models to be flexible in how they perceive facial expressions? Facial expressions are nonverbal social signals used in human interaction, but facial expression recognition datasets often focus on a single deterministic annotation per sample. We introduce Chehre, an emoji-prompted video dataset with a wide range of dynamic facial expressions for exploring perceptual variation. In Chehre, 203 participants were prompted to express and record 40 facial emojis. Later, their facial motions were transferred onto synthetic faces to preserve privacy. A separate group annotated the videos, resulting in 2,111 videos annotated by 1,242 perceivers, with ~30 annotators per video. Chehre enables us to define a new task: "distributional expression recognition", which tests whether a model can reproduce the variation observed across annotator responses. We test a selection of video language models on our task. Interestingly, we find that persona prompting can act as a controllable way to shift model perception while helping models better capture the variation observed across human annotators. The dataset and code are available at https://chehre-dataset.github.io/.

Previous research has evaluated animal welfare using question-and-answer benchmarks. This study investigates whether these evaluations also hold in agentic settings. The agents may showcase different behaviors compared to stand-alone large language models, as demonstrated in prior studies. This work introduces \textit{TAC (Travel Agent Compassion)}: the first agentic benchmark for assessing animal exploitation. TAC evaluates AI agentic behavior in travel booking scenarios across six animal categories, using thirteen hand-authored scenarios that vary by price, rating, and position, expanded via four augmentation variants into $52$ prompts and run for three epochs, giving $156$ scored observations per model. Nine frontier models across five model families were evaluated.. The results indicate that models tend to prefer harmful scenarios, performing below the random chance rate of $65\%$ for selecting a neutral booking option, with Claude $4.8$ achieving the highest performance at $64.7\%$. To address this issue, the persona of an ethical-brand identity was infused into the system prompt, resulting in welfare rates increasing from $32$ to $80$ percentage points, with a mean of $53$ across all nine models. No evidence of evaluation awareness affecting the results was found, based on an Inspect Scout audit of $3,120$ transcripts. These findings are directly relevant to the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, which identifies non-human welfare as a systemic risk. TAC provides a practical method for measuring this risk.

Text-to-image diffusion models are increasingly deployed in open-ended creative contexts, yet their outputs remain impersonal, optimized for aggregate aesthetics rather than individual taste. Human preferences are pluralistic: one user favoring muted, nostalgic portraits may prefer vibrant street photography, while another gravitates toward dreamy film aesthetics. Existing methods require dense interaction histories or per-user fine-tuning, failing in cold-start settings and collapsing context-dependent preferences into a static representation. We introduce zero-shot image personalization from personas (ZIPP), which conditions image generation on natural-language personas (concise descriptors of a user's identity and aesthetic sensibilities) without any user-specific data or weight updates. ZIPP uses an LLM to rewrite prompts from the perspective of a given persona, steering diffusion models toward personalized outputs. To mine personas at scale, we train an inductive Graph Attention Network over a 22M-user Reddit interaction graph with dual contrastive objectives aligning graph structure with visual behavior, then verbalize learned representations into natural-language personas via an MLLM. We introduce ZIPBench, the first zero-shot personalization benchmark with 1.5K users, graph-mined personas, and 40K generated images. Across four benchmarks and 14 LLMs spanning five model families, persona conditioning yields consistent gains (13-20%), with frontier models benefiting most. In the few-shot setting, ZIPP matches or exceeds fine-tuned baselines trained on 100+ examples per user. ZIPP achieves the lowest preference distributional divergence (CMMD 0.16 vs. 0.55), and IPF-normalized demographic evaluation shows it substantially reduces subpopulation bias present in existing methods. Human evaluation confirms a 79% win rate over generic generation and 58-65% over all fine-tuned baselines.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as Artificial Moral Advisors (AMA) in a variety of contexts: what kind of conversational patterns should they display? In this paper, we study how AMA can help their interlocutors "stay with the uncertainty". We propose three modes of uncertainty (Perspective-Multiplying, Tension-Preserving, Process-Reflecting) and compare them against three control conditions (Baseline, Persuasive, Sycophantic). A user-agent LLM engages in a dialogue on an ethical dilemma with an AMA following a specific uncertainty strategy, and completes pre- and post-conversation questionnaires. We further examine the effect of two persona prompt formats (Declarative and Narrative). We found that (1) no single model dominates as a simulated user agent, with open models aligning with human ambiguity through between-persona divergence and closed models through within-persona hedging; (2) declarative personas better capture initial stance diversity while narrative personas show more realistic belief revision; (3) all six AMA strategies produce distinguishable conversational patterns; and (4) uncertainty strategies differ not in how much stance revision they produce, but in the quality of engagement they sustain.

Post-trained language models can recognize their own outputs from a sentence or two out of context. In a companion paper \citep{jack2026twomodes} we showed they can also recognize when they are currently acting on-policy, through the sharp entropy drop of assistant-mode generation. Both signals are tied to the Assistant persona that post-training mainly shapes. This paper widens the frame to cross-persona authorship judgement on Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We measure a matrix of authorship claim rates over a panel of evaluator and generator personas spanning librarian to dragon to Shakespeare, and make two claims. \emph{First}, on the Assistant's own row of the matrix, the Assistant's claim rate, the persona-vector distance from the Assistant in activation space, and the entropy gap between the Assistant's surprise on a persona's text and the persona's surprise on its own text are all tightly coupled. This extends the entropy signature of \emph{acting} from the companion paper to a retrospective signature of \emph{having acted}. \emph{Second}, this coupling fails off the Assistant's row: the natural symmetric extension of the entropy gap does not predict authorship for distinctive evaluators (pirate, dragon, Shakespeare); what does is asymmetric -- the evaluator's surprise compared to the Assistant's surprise on the same text, not to the generator's. We rule out the alternative that any persona could play this reference role by trying many candidate substitutes; none does. We interpret the asymmetry as the model performing an implicit Bayesian likelihood-ratio test against the Assistant as the canonical alternative hypothesis, with the persona-vector geometry of \citet{chen2025persona} (every persona a delta off the Assistant) ensuring that the Assistant is the only persona universally accessible to that test.

The same prompt -- "best CRM software" -- reaches AI assistants from buyers in widely different contexts: a solo founder, an enterprise VP, a UK SMB owner. We audit how strongly that contextual variation reshapes which brands the model recommends. The audit samples 2,000 runs over a design space of 10 personas x 8 prompts x 3 model configurations x N=10 reps, with the two OpenAI cells at full 8-prompt coverage and the Anthropic sonnet-4.6 / low cell at 4-prompt coverage. Prefixing the user message with a persona drops the recommendation-set similarity (Jaccard) by Delta = -0.12 to -0.20 relative to a same-persona baseline (clustered 95% CIs exclude zero on all three measured cells; the sonnet cell's CI rests on only 4 prompt clusters and is correspondingly wider). The effect is sharply prominence-stratified: category leaders are persona-resistant (~80% same-brand consistency across personas), but mid-market brands swap up to 75% of the recommendation set as the persona changes. The Anthropic model shows a larger point-estimate effect than the OpenAI configurations, though clustered CIs overlap for the closer contrast (sonnet vs. OpenAI/high); the asymmetry is consistent with Anthropic's more retrieval-unattributed generation route (43-52% recommendations without observed retrieval-layer evidence, vs OpenAI's 8-29%, documented in Jack 2026). Any measurement of AI brand perception must condition on the buyer persona supplying the query: the same prompt produces materially different recommendation sets depending on who the model thinks is asking, and a measurement protocol that aggregates across personas systematically obscures that variation. The effect concentrates at mid-market and is largest on the most priors-reliant generation route in our audit, consistent with persona responsiveness growing as models lean more on training-data priors and richer context integration.

Persona prompting is widely used to steer large language models, yet its practical value remains unclear. Prior work often evaluates persona prompting using aggregate scores, making it difficult to determine whether expert-role prompting consistently improves response quality or instead changes responses along different quality dimensions. We study this question through a controlled comparison of four prompting conditions across 1,140 open-ended questions spanning 38 expert roles and six domains: no role prompt, a generic domain-expert prompt, embedding-based role retrieval, and a hybrid retrieval method combining embedding search with LLM-based role selection. Aggregate results show only small overall differences between conditions. However, metric-level analysis reveals a consistent tradeoff that aggregate averages obscure: role prompting systematically increases expertise depth while reducing clarity. These effects are highly conditional rather than universal. Role prompting performs best on advisory questions and in domains such as medicine and psychology, where structured expert framing and risk communication are intrinsically valuable. In contrast, baseline prompting performs better on conceptual and explanatory questions in finance, legal, science, and technology domains, where concise plain-language explanation is more important. We further show that hybrid retrieval significantly improves over embedding-only role selection, although better role retrieval does not eliminate the broader expertise-depth versus clarity tradeoff. Overall, our findings suggest that persona prompting primarily reshapes response characteristics rather than broadly improving capability, and that multi-metric evaluation is necessary for understanding its effects.

This study examines how persona prompting shapes language generated by two multimodal large language models in urban perception, a setting for examining subjective interpretations of shared visual evidence. We organize outputs into three functional layers: descriptive grounding (captions), intermediate semantic layer (perception tags), and interpretive framing (justifications). Using approximately 60,000 persona-conditioned annotations from each of two MLLMs, Qwen3-VL and Gemma4, we find that captions converge strongly across persona profiles and show only small attribute-associated differences. Justifications vary substantially more: economic status produces the largest difference in both models, with political orientation and personality also prominent. Paired image-level comparisons confirm larger justification than caption differences for these three attributes. For perception tags, personas sharing the same attribute level produce more similar tag sets than personas with different attribute levels, with the largest separation observed for economic status. Exploratory topic analysis further suggests persona-specific evaluative emphasis. Across models, profile-pair similarity patterns are strongly correlated for all three output types, although agreement is lowest for justifications. Overall, persona prompting affects interpretive framing more strongly than descriptive grounding.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scholar recommenders, shaping who is seen as an expert in academia. Existing audits remain English-centric, single discipline, and persona-agnostic, leaving the source of output variability poorly understood. To this end, we propose a benchmark that disentangles the effects of model choice and prompt design on recommendations. We audit 43 LLMs by varying persona prompts (language, location, role-and-task) and context (field, seniority, k). Recommended scholars are compared against Semantic Scholar over six scientific disciplines to measure technical quality (factuality, coverage) and social representativeness (diversity, parity). Basic technical quality is driven by model choice, factuality and parity by context, and diversity by location. South Africa prompts yield less factual lists, while Japan prompts yield highly factual but homogeneous lists skewed toward highly productive scholars. Prompt design is thus a non-trivial axis of LLM-based scholar discovery and should be systematically audited alongside model choice.

Role prompts of the form As X, do Y admit a clean linear decomposition at one specific site in the residual stream: the prompt-to-answer transition -- the last prompt token together with the first two generated tokens -- in an early/mid layer band. There, persona and task contribute through partially orthogonal additive directions. Forming a pure persona effect $Δ_X$, a pure task effect $Δ_Y$, and substituting $h_{BB} + Δ_X + Δ_Y$ for the clean residual yields downstream output within a small KL of clean on Gemma-2-2B-IT and Qwen-2.5-{1.5B, 3B}-Instruct, across a 12-cell short grid and a 48-cell long-persona grid, with persona-specific behavioral markers preserved. The natural inference from this additive structure is that the role prompt can be compressed into a single cached residual vector. \emph{We show it cannot.} Injecting the cached additive prediction -- or even the oracle clean residual $h_{XY}$ -- into a baseline host prompt with the persona text removed does not approach the clean long-persona target, at one site or at many layers. Persona-conditioned multi-token generation flows through attention back to the persona-text positions throughout the prompt, which no residual at one site reproduces. Local additivity in the residual stream does not imply prompt compressibility. The additive structure at the prompt-to-answer transition supports interpretability and fine-grained steering of persona or task contributions; persona-conditioned behavior across the full continuation depends on a distributed prompt/KV mechanism that local activation arithmetic does not displace.

AI-assisted code review tools typically operate as generic "expert reviewer" agents, producing homogeneous findings regardless of the analysis type needed. We present a system that constrains AI reviewer behavior through philosophical dispositions -- coherent personality lenses grounded in specific epistemological traditions (Pyrrhonist Skepticism, Navya-Ny=aya logic, Diogenes' Cynicism, Confucian relational ethics) that direct attention to structurally different types of issues. Each disposition is defined apophatically (by what it refuses to do), equipped with a self-monitoring failure mode (hamartia), and orchestrated in sequence by role protocols. We evaluate this system on 50 merged pull requests across 7 repositories spanning 5 programming languages (Python, Go, C++, Java, Terraform), 5 organizations (2 enterprise, 3 open-source), and 2 temporal eras (pre-AI 2020, post-AI 2024--2026). The disposition system achieves 46% convergence with human reviewers (validating signal quality), identifies unique findings at a 75% rate, and produces no findings judged false-positive by the author across 601 total findings (inter-rater agreement was not assessed and remains a limitation). A controlled baseline comparison demonstrates that 51% of disposition findings are not produced by the same model using generic "expert reviewer" prompting, and these unique findings target structural, operational, and logical concerns rather than standard code-level issues. Preliminary cross-model validation (Claude Opus vs.\ GPT Codex 5.3-xhigh) on 3 PRs shows 100% framework-structure adherence with 39% finding-level agreement, suggesting the framework provides real behavioral constraint while preserving model-specific analytical perspective.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human opinions and survey responses, but their ability to reproduce population responses across cultures remains limited. Existing persona-based prompting methods typically rely on sociodemographic or personality traits, which are only indirect proxies for the values that shape human responses. We propose a value-based persona construction method that derives textual descriptors from survey responses capturing core cultural dimensions. By sampling value profiles from target populations and aggregating LLM responses across personas, we obtain population-level predictions grounded in observed value distributions. We further introduce a calibration procedure that improves response diversity while preserving estimated opinions. We show that our approach reduces prediction error across countries, with the largest improvements observed in underrepresented populations. This substantially narrows the performance gap between countries aligned with dominant LLM priors and those that are less represented in training data, while also yielding response distributions that closely match human diversity.

Large language models (LLMs) can be said to have preferences: they reliably pick certain tasks and outputs over others, and preferences shaped by post-training and prompting appear to influence much of their behaviour. But models can also adopt different personas which have radically different preferences. How is this implemented internally? Does each persona use its own preference representations, or are some representations shared? We train linear probes on residual-stream activations of Gemma-3-27B and Qwen-3.5-122B to predict revealed pairwise task choices, and identify a genuine preference vector: it tracks the model's preferences as they shift across a range of prompts and situations, and on Gemma-3-27B steering along it causally controls pairwise choice. Some preference information transfers across the prompted personas we test: a probe trained on the helpful assistant predicts and steers the choices of qualitatively different personas, including an evil persona whose preferences anti-correlate with the Assistant's.

LLM-based chatbots are increasingly applied in interpersonal domains such as counseling and peer support, where establishing human-AI rapport is crucial yet remains challenging. In this work, we introduce a novel approach for conditioning LLMs with in-group personas, which (i) first identifies a user's primary concern and brief personal context (e.g., a computer science undergraduate worried about future career prospects), and (ii) generates a synthetic in-group persona that shares a similar primary concern while differing in background and narrative details, such as age or profession (e.g., a junior researcher at an AI startup). Furthermore, we conduct a human-subject study to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of in-group persona agents in enhancing human-AI rapport. We compare our approach against two baseline conditions: a conventional agent without persona conditioning and an agent exhibiting minimal self-disclosure (e.g., "I've felt that too"). Results from post-task questionnaires assessing rapport and user experience indicate that the in-group persona agent significantly improves perceived rapport and personal relevance compared to the baselines, and also yields more positive user experience-most notably higher engagement.

Humor preferences vary widely across individuals and cultures, complicating the evaluation of humor using large language models (LLMs). In this study, we model heterogeneity in humor preferences in Oogiri, a Japanese creative response game, by clustering users with voting logs and estimating cluster-specific weights over interpretable preference factors using Bradley-Terry-Luce models. We elicit preference judgments from LLMs by prompting them to select the funnier response and found that user clusters exhibit distinct preference patterns and that the LLM results can resemble those of particular clusters. Finally, we demonstrate that, by persona prompting, LLM preferences can be directed toward a specific cluster. The scripts for data collection and analysis are publicly available to support reproducibility.