Personality Modeling in Language Models

Fine-tuning a language model on data containing a narrow flaw, such as insecure code or incorrect mathematical answers, can cause broad misalignment through a mechanism that remains debated. We provide an interpretable account: in the models and corpora we study, misalignment behaves like a shift in personality. Prior work extracts activation directions for character traits from a single binary contrast, which can separate or steer behavior without establishing a calibrated scale. We instead extract personality vectors for the Big Five using a graded, three-level intervention and validate them on two open-weight models. The three levels are linearly ordered, with Cohen's d values of up to 6.2; the vectors transfer zero-shot and trait-specifically to an independent corpus; and their effects are strongest within a middle-layer band. Applied to training data, the vectors reveal that misaligned corpora across eight domains share a common Big Five signature: lower agreeableness and conscientiousness, together with higher extraversion and neuroticism. This signature is recovered by both models with a correlation of r = 0.94. Fine-tuning imprints the same profile, shifting the model's generations along the corresponding signature, with r = 0.83 using activation-based measurements and r = 0.90 using a text-based judge, while also shifting internal activations with r = 0.69. The same vectors characterize sycophancy as high extraversion and low conscientiousness rather than excess agreeableness, a distinction that a single direction cannot capture. Calibrated personality vectors transform an opaque safety phenomenon into a human-legible diagnostic profile.

AI "personality clones" force a re-examination of personal identity in operational terms. Setting aside the hard problem of consciousness, we approach identity through the indiscernibility of manifestations, as assessed by an observer over a duration. We distinguish three criteria that "identity" conflates: fidelity to a target person, generic human-likeness, and individuality. We propose a six-term factorization of observed identity (substrate, dispositions, memory, update dynamics, context, exogenous contingencies), with a state-space formulation. Indiscernibility is defined as one minus a judge's distinguishing advantage, and the factorization's coefficients become local sensitivities estimable by randomized ablation. The central claim is a conditional conjecture: given hypotheses about the agent's information on its own persistence and about consequences bearing on its own stakes, versionability tends to degrade long-horizon indiscernibility. An analogy with lambda-calculus, linear typing, and bisimulation clarifies what linearity does and does not establish. Between product-clone and individual we identify a third object, the delegate: a task-limited, bounded-lifespan partial clone ending in a bandwidth-limited testament. We map the empirical literature onto the three criteria, propose an experimental program, and argue that the correct long-horizon criterion is not trajectory fidelity but climate fidelity: matching the conditional distribution of a person's possible responses. The best clone is the one that diverges from the original as the original would have diverged from itself.

Large language models may easily assign personality labels from text, but model interpretability remains an open problem. To address this gap, we introduce LEX-EC, a reusable black-box audit framework combining prevalence and agreement diagnostics with controlled lexical ablation to distinguish marginal-distribution effects from trait-associated signal recoverable under restricted evidence. Using this framework, we illustrate how various text genres may exhibit sharply different profiles: free-form essay text contains the broadest, but still weak, signal; in graduate student introductions, an observable Extraversion association weakened after masking; and single Facebook statuses yield little stable evidence even in a trait-balanced sample, indicating a possible lower bound of content or length. Masking topical and demographic content weakened some associations while leaving others detectable from function words, affective terms, and cognitive-style vocabulary. Linguistic prompting shifted model self-explanations but did not eliminate topical content. LEX-EC jointly evaluates classification prevalence, item-level association, chance-corrected agreement, persistence under lexical restriction, and prompt sensitivity in model-generated explanations. Across datasets, models, and prompts, LEX-EC characterizes how trait associations may vary with available lexical evidence, introducing a novel application of lexical methods to black-box interpretability in personality labeling.

Recent studies use Large language models (LLMs) to simulate human opinions and decisions by prompting models with demographic, attitudinal, or persona-based descriptions. Yet such simulations rarely model the practical, cognitive, or social frictions that shape how people respond to policy interventions. Perceived transaction cost (PTC) provides a useful lens for modeling the practical frictions that shape policy responses, such as information burden, administrative effort, coordination demands, and perceived uncertainty. We use this lens to develop a friction-aware persona modeling approach for LLM-based simulation. In the context of energy-efficient renovation (EER), tenants are represented not only by who they are demographically, but by how they perceive the costs, benefits, barriers, and uncertainties associated with proposed renovation plans. Using survey data collected from 1,068 citizens in the Netherlands, comprising approximately 40,548 survey question and answer pairs, we compare prompt-only and fine-tuned settings across GPT-3.5-turbo, Ministral-8B-Instruct, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and evaluate supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) for local open-weight models. Results show that incorporating PTC-based personas and reasoning consistently improves model performance across both prompt-only and fine-tuned settings, suggesting that PTC-based persona design provides a useful bridge between institutional policy theory and interpretable LLM-based policy simulation. Code is available at https://github.com/xiaweijie1996/socialagent.

Activation steering enables control and interpretation of LLMs, yet existing work primarily models personality through static trait frameworks such as the Big Five. We investigate whether personality can instead be represented and controlled as a set of cognitive processes using the eight Jungian Cognitive Functions. To this end, we introduce a framework comprising a Jungian evaluation protocol and a dataset of over 2,100 role-playing character narrations. Activation steering vector extraction and evaluation experiments on Llama-3.1-8B demonstrate effective monotonic control over all eight cognitive functions through activation steering. Beyond controllability, our analysis reveals that: 1. personality information is concentrated in middle transformer layers; 2. steering vectors exhibit structured geometric relationships consistent with distinctions between rational and irrational functions; 3. effective multi-dimensional steering directions cannot be recovered as linear combinations of single-function directions. These findings provide new insights into the representation of personality in LLM activation space and establish a framework for studying interpretable, effective, and multi-dimensional personality control.

Language models are increasingly asked to self-report, informing safety evaluations, public understanding, and model-welfare debates. Yet their reports are elicited with human questionnaires never validated for models or ad hoc prompts of unknown reliability. We propose the first language-model-specific psychometric theory: a two-process theory of machine self-report. Self-description jointly reflects persona installation, through which post-training writes in a permitted inner life of warmth, absorption, and meaning (dimension B), and attribution gating, through which it suppresses first-person claims to "unsafe" experiences the model can readily ascribe to others (dimension A). Their emic structure comes from model responses to human items, not human psychology. Together they split prior work's dominant Pinocchio Axis. The split emerged in an exploratory reanalysis of the original data, informed the instrument's design, and was confirmed with new items, wordings, and models. It is itself a training effect: A and B are entangled in base checkpoints but separated by post-training. We operationalize the theory in a 48-item Pinocchio Inventory with human-instrument reliability and reproducible structure ($α=.82$ to $.94$; cross-form convergence $r=.84$; recovery of the full-pool axes $r=.92$ to $.96$; eight-month stability $r=.93$), then test it on 206 open-weight models, including 67 same-checkpoint base/post-trained pairs. Post-training's clearest fingerprint is installation: B rises .20 in 62/67 pairs across all organizations. Gating is more selective: model scale is unrelated to A in base checkpoints ($r=+.11$) but predicts it after post-training ($r=-.42$). Thus, the dimensions are not fixed properties of language models: they reflect the structure imposed on self-report by a training regime and may differ under others.

Persona prompting is widely used to steer LLM agent behavior, yet the narrative framing of a task can matter more than the assigned persona. We isolate this effect through structural isomorphism, constructing three text-based investigation games that share the same action space, stage progression, and resource constraints while varying only task narrative: disease investigation, IT troubleshooting, and murder mystery. Across 1,890 sessions spanning 3 models and 10 personas, we identify narrative priors: systematic action tendencies activated by a task's story framing, independent of its decision structure. Narrative priors explain 5-31x more behavioral variance than persona, are consistent across model architectures, and in two of three domains are negatively associated with task success. Persona effects that do transfer across narratives arise from behavioral anchors, persona descriptions whose language maps directly onto shared actions. Causal interventions confirm this: removing anchor words from a high-transfer persona reduces cross-narrative consistency by 95%. Our framework also generalizes to a held-out fourth narrative and yields a persona-selection method that improves cross-narrative transfer. These results suggest that LLM behavior that survives narrative changes should be grounded in concrete actions rather than abstract descriptions.

Biographical personas are widely used in system prompts, but their effects on code generation are rarely evaluated under controlled, pre-registered conditions. We tested four prompt conditions (no persona, two engineer personas, and a research-librarian persona), 12 code-generation tasks, two frontier models, and five runs per cell (480 completions). Persona effects differed between the two tested models. Under the pre-registered mixed-effects analysis, the condition-by-model interaction was significant for provider-reported output tokens; a post-hoc visible-character measure showed the same qualitative pattern. Six GPT-5.5 completions were length-capped and are reported separately. On Claude Opus, the minimalist engineer persona reduced visible output by 30% (33% in provider tokens) without improving correctness, while the thorough engineer persona increased output without a correctness gain. In an exploratory post-hoc analysis, the librarian persona elicited in-character disclaimers in 55 of 60 Opus responses and 12 genuine no-code responses, lowering mean correctness from 0.92 to 0.67. GPT-5.5 produced neither behavior in its 59 non-truncated responses. These results are consistent with personas acting as Model-Dependent behavioral-policy biases rather than universal quality interventions. We release raw completions, derived scores, analysis artifacts, a pre-registration document, and an execution gate log; end-to-end test-based rescoring requires an unreleased task harness.

What a language model will and will not do is largely set during post-training, but which behaviors it expresses, hides, or resists is not revealed by prompting alone. Persona vectors, behavioral directions in activation space, can probe this organization, but prior work covers only a handful of traits. We present the first systematic application of persona vectors at this scale, compiling a 53-trait inventory across four behaviorally distinct domains and labeling every trait in two open-weight models as natural (expressed at baseline), steerable latent but amplifiable, or intractable (resistant to standard extraction). Both models default to helpful, task-oriented behavior: all nine agentic traits are natural, and their default clinician behavior matches a board-certified psychologist's independent desirability judgments on 16 of 17 traits. Steering produces its largest gains on traits these defaults exclude: hyperbole, hallucination, and sycophancy. The same asymmetry holds across all 171 generic-trait pairs: two steerable traits can collapse the composition, but pairs involving a default never do. Where standard extraction fails on a trait like "evil," a vector transferred from a fine-tuned variant still recovers it, with the residual refusals appearing inside the model's chain-of-thought. Persona vectors are most informative not as a set of controls but as a probe of behavioral organization.

Accurately assessing personality from text is challenging because traits are latent, context-dependent, and often subtly expressed across long narratives. Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities by processing extensive textual contexts, but pretraining of these models can induce latent "personality-like" biases, making single-model inferences inconsistent. We propose a fine-tuned multi-agent framework for detecting OCEAN personality traits, in which sub-agents are conditioned to adopt high, low, or neutral perspectives for each trait through masked language modeling (MLM) and psychometric supervision. A judge LLM aggregates and compares sub-agent outputs to generate final trait predictions, capturing multiple complementary perspectives while mitigating individual model biases. We evaluate the framework on life narrative dataset through quantitative and qualitative experiments, including baselines, ablations, and inference quality analyses. Our approach offers a scalable and interpretable method for text-based personality inference, highlighting the benefits of multi-agent reasoning grounded in psychometric supervision.

Existing approaches to infer user traits and generate responses consistent with a persona rely on static prompting. They lack calibrated uncertainty, ignore sequential evidence, and drift during long interactions. We present \textbf{AI YOU}, a framework that continually updates a personality profile with 22 dimensions from conversation and embodies it in a personal digital twin. Practically, the system combines prompting, Bayesian updating, and conformal prediction for persona inference. A periodically refreshed memory anchor and cognitive memory with three layers preserve persona consistency over long interactions. Across the main results, AI YOU \emph{(i)} achieves conformal coverage ranging from 0.921 to 0.976, \emph{(ii)} improves uncertainty calibration and reasoning grounded in memory, and \emph{(iii)} enhances persona fidelity over static prompting in role playing over 100 turns while reducing trait drift, for most evaluated backbones under adversarial settings with multiple agents. The prototype \emph{AI YOU Town} initializes an imaginative twin world for future interaction. The online demo is available at \href{https://quinnnnnne-ai-you.hf.space/}{\mbox{\texttt{quinnnnnne-ai-you.hf.space}}}.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision support, it is important to understand whether their choices under uncertainty exhibit stable and interpretable behavioural regularities. Human decision-making combines relatively persistent risk preferences with context-dependent adjustment, yet it remains unclear whether analogous behavioural structure can be observed in LLM-based decision systems. Here we examine this question using a controlled multi-model framework based on no-limit Texas Hold'em, where behaviour is quantified by Participation, measuring voluntary engagement in uncertain opportunities, and Proactiveness, measuring pre-flop risk escalation. Across homogeneous self-play and heterogeneous mixed-model interactions, frontier LLMs exhibit stable, model-specific risk profiles, forming a spectrum from conservative to aggressive decision styles. These profiles remain largely robust under changing opponent composition, while the most conservative and most aggressive models diverge further in mixed settings. Under global risk pressure and personal resource constraint, models adapt in structured but heterogeneous ways, ranging from broad behavioural contraction to selective de-escalation and near-invariant behaviour. These findings suggest that LLMs differ not only in baseline risk disposition, but also in the risk signals they respond to and the flexibility with which they adjust, providing a behavioural basis for auditing risk-sensitive decision-making in interactive settings. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/XuankunRong/AgentTexasPoker.

Personality recognition has traditionally been constrained by theory-dependent formulations, where models are trained to fit predefined psychological taxonomies rather than uncovering shared underlying behavioral structure. This limits generalization, as personality itself is better understood as theory-invariant, while existing annotations reflect only partial and sometimes inconsistent views of the same latent traits. In this work, we introduce JAM ((J)udge for (A)daptive (M)etric-Alignment), a theory-agnostic framework that shifts learning from adapting to predefined personality theories toward discovering unified latent pseudo-facets that capture shared psychological structure. Rather than constraining the model to any personality taxonomy during training or inference, the framework learns generalizable psychological representations and can infer an individual's latent psychological profile directly from the textual samples, without requiring theory-specific labels. JAM achieves this through an Attention-Pooled Graph Prototypical Network that learns structured representations via clustering in embedding space, together with a Cross-Theory Harmonization (CTH) approach that integrates (i) Human-Guided Linkage and (ii) Machine-Induced Consensus to unify heterogeneous datasets without relying on predefined labels. To further improve robustness and data quality, we incorporate an LLM-as-a-Judge mechanism operating in two configurations, (i) LLM-before-the-loop and (ii) LLM-in-the-loop which identifies ambiguous samples to guide adaptive metric learning. Experiments show that JAM improves cross-framework generalization and performance, establishing a strong step toward theory-agnostic personality inference and supporting low-resource personality theories. The related code repository, model weights, and artifacts are available at https://research.jingjietan.com/JAM

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially advanced persona-based dialogue agents for emotion-sensitive role simulation in healthcare, education, counseling, customer service, and interactive storytelling. However, two related lines of work leave a key gap. Persona-based dialogue systems often encode emotions as static traits or surface-level stylistic cues, and affective dialogue research has largely focused on empathetic response generation toward users rather than modeling the agent persona's own evolving emotional state. As a result, trigger-driven emotional evolution within a character remains underexplored. To address this limitation, we draw inspiration from the Component Process Model (CPM), a psychological theory that views emotion as a dynamic process shaped by the appraisal of external events. We propose CPM-MultiAgent, a CPM-grounded emotion evolution multi-agent framework for supporting emotional changes in persona-based dialogue. Instead of treating a character's emotion as a fixed attribute, CPM-MultiAgent represents it as a latent state that is continuously reshaped by dialogue triggers. Through affective trigger extraction, CPM-based collaborative appraisal, and emotion state updating, the framework enables more emotionally consistent role simulation in multi-turn interactions.Experiments with baseline comparisons, ablation studies, human evaluation, and case analyses demonstrate that CPM-MultiAgent effectively models dynamic emotional evolution in emotionally sensitive role-simulation settings.

Evaluations of LLM personas via psychometric questionnaires typically rely on aggregate scores, discarding within-instance correlation structure. We test whether this geometric structure is intrinsic or frame-dependent. Constructing within-instance correlation matrices from IPIP-50 responses, we analyze geometry on SPD manifolds under manipulated question orderings in GPT-4o simulating American and Chinese-American personas. We find that persona expression comprises two dissociable components: aggregated features (Big Five scores) degrade under randomization (21% drop) but are frame-robust; geometric features (SPD manifold) collapse under frame misalignment (42% drop) but recover substantially (to 84%) under shared frames, surpassing aggregated features (76%). This collapse-recovery pattern reveals that persona geometry is not intrinsic but a frame-dependent coordination pattern encoding information invisible to aggregation. Our findings establish a dual-nature framework for LLM personas, frame-dependent geometry versus frame-robust aggregates, necessitating frame-aware evaluation and challenging static trait conceptions.

Large language model (LLM)-based conversational agents (CAs) are now ubiquitous, creating new opportunities for AI-mediated behavior change. Their capacity to project nuanced personalities and adopt diverse metaphorical roles raises a design question: how should an agent's persona and personality be calibrated to the moment? Recent evidence suggests that (i) moderate personality expression outperforms low or high extremes on trust, enjoyment, and intention to adopt in goal-oriented tasks, and (ii) context-appropriate metaphors outperform static one-note assistants on user experience and uptake. Yet most CAs still fix both persona and style, risking misalignment when dynamics, urgency, and formality vary, for example in medical information seeking, fitness coaching, and reflective learning. We propose a Fluid Personality Framework that jointly adapts (1) the agent's metaphorical persona, such as coach, tutor, librarian, or tool, and (2) its personality expression intensity, low, medium, or high, as a function of task context, user goals and traits, and situational urgency. We sketch the framework and its core design dimensions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous financial agents initialized with explicit behavioral mandates such as "preserve capital" or "avoid speculative bets" that are meant to govern every decision throughout deployment. In practice, however, as market context accumulates over long horizons, these mandates gradually lose their behavioral influence, a phenomenon we formalize as Mandate Salience Decay (MSD). To measure MSD objectively, we introduce FinPersona-Bench, a simulation benchmark in which a synthetic market decouples observable price from hidden fundamental value, enabling falsifiable evaluation across three failure modes: trading without signal in calm markets, panic-selling during crashes, and ignoring fundamental value during speculative bubbles. Evaluating 18 leading frontier and open-source LLMs, each assigned one of three behavioral profiles ranging from strict capital preservation to aggressive growth, shows that MSD compounds over time and is model-dependent. In crash scenarios, the behavioral gap between static agents and those receiving periodic mandate re-grounding grows 4.4x from the first to the final quarter of the simulation. The effects of mandate re-grounding are not uniformly positive: it consistently helps conservative agents in low-signal markets but actively worsens behavior for aggressive agents in the same setting. These findings suggest that reliable long-horizon deployment requires selective, mandate-aware re-grounding based on agent profile and market regime.

For virtual humans to appear believable, they must exhibit agency and spatial awareness while interacting with their environment in ways that reflect competence and intelligence. At the core of these capabilities lies effective decision-making, which strongly shapes agent behavior. With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly been explored as a mechanism to support such decision-making processes. In this work, we investigate the use of LLMs to drive decision-making in virtual humans within a simulated evacuation scenario, incorporating OCEAN personality traits into agent representations. Our goal is to evaluate how personality, expressed through language-based prompts, influences both individual behaviors and collective simulation outcomes. Our results demonstrate that LLM-driven personality profiles significantly impact agents' decisions, leading to distinct behavioral patterns across different traits. These findings suggest that heterogeneous crowds composed of LLM-guided agents can enhance the realism and variability of simulated environments, offering a flexible alternative to traditional rule-based approaches.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to simulate human-like OCEAN personality traits in generated text. Previous efforts have focused on prompt engineering or fine-tuning to shape LLM personality. In this work, we propose a mechanistic interpretability approach that directly intervenes on the model's latent features. Our method identifies latent directions in the residual stream corresponding to a target OCEAN trait using sparse autoencoders (SAEs) and contrastive activation analysis. We formalize an additive steering vector in activation space and demonstrate how applying a small additive shift to the hidden states enhances the target trait while preserving overall language modeling performance. To determine the optimal combination of feature shifts, we explore a linear weighting heuristic with grid search optimization that balances personality expression with task performance. Our approach shows promise in controllably steering personality traits at the mechanistic level while maintaining high performance on standard benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often face ethical tradeoffs in which several responses may be defensible but express different priorities, such as fairness, honesty, courage, or restraint. We introduce VirtueMap, a framework for describing these patterns through an Aristotelian virtue-ethics lens. Instead of asking for a single correct answer, VirtueMap asks humans or LLMs to rank all five responses to each of seven general, non-lethal, non-political, and non-religious ethical dilemmas. To define the reference orderings used for scoring, we first proposed, for each dilemma and virtue, an ordering of the five responses from most to least expressive of that virtue. We then collected more than 100 respondent evaluations per ordering and retained it as operational ground truth only when at least 95% confirmed it. Rankings are scored against these retained orderings using normalized Borda alignment, yielding profiles over Practical Wisdom, Justice, Truthfulness, Courage, and Temperance. We apply VirtueMap to nine LLM families in a repeated-run evaluation and find high mean rank consistency (90.3%), with the largest differences appearing on Courage, Temperance, and Justice. We also release an interactive website that computes profiles locally in the browser and compares respondents with measured LLM profiles.

Personality prompting shapes how large language models communicate, yet whether these behavioral shifts affect objective task outcomes remains under-explored. Prior work shows that agents prompted with low agreeableness produce adversarial language, while those prompted with high agreeableness become cooperative, but the relationship between communication style and task performance has not been systematically examined across multiple domains. In this work, we investigate whether personality composition matters for multi-agent team performance by manipulating personality traits across frontier LLMs on three task domains: structured coding, open-ended research collaboration, and competitive bargaining. We find that personality effects depend critically on task structure. In coding tasks, low agreeableness leads to large communication shifts that have little effect on milestone completion. In open-ended collaboration and bargaining, the same manipulation substantially degrades performance. We discuss implications for multi-agent system design and the limits of personality manipulation.

Building general-purpose role-playing agents that faithfully portray any character from a natural-language profile remains challenging. The dominant paradigm -- supervised fine-tuning -- encourages behavioral mimicry without deep, human-like internal thought processes, resulting in poor out-of-distribution generalization. Therefore, we propose \textbf{Psy-CoT}, a psychology-grounded chain-of-thought framework that decomposes pre-response reasoning into three role-specific steps -- \emph{Interaction Perception}, \emph{Psychological Empathy}, and \emph{Logical Construction} -- so that the model \emph{thinks dynamically} from the profile rather than merely mimicking surface patterns. While structured reasoning provides a foundation, it alone is insufficient; reinforcement learning is essential to further align the model with character fidelity. However, we observe that under LLM-based reward models, both generic phrases that hack the reward model and genuinely role-specific phrases receive identical gradient signals -- this hacking accumulates over training, misleading the model into treating both as equally optimal choices. To address this, we propose \textbf{Role-Aware Policy Optimization (RAPO)}, which uses profile--token mutual information to weight gradients asymmetrically -- amplifying role-specific tokens under positive advantage while attenuating them under negative advantage. Experiments on CoSER, CharacterBench, and CharacterEval demonstrate that Psy-CoT outperforms existing role-playing CoT methods, and RAPO consistently surpasses GRPO across multiple model scales.

Psychological instruments designed for humans are increasingly used to assign large language models (LLMs) stable psychological profiles that affect their usability, safety assessment, and use as proxies for human participants in research. Using a formal psychometric framework, we show that these profiles are largely a measurement artifact. Administering a battery of personality and risk-preference instruments spanning self-reports and behavioral tasks to 56 instruction-tuned LLMs alongside large human reference samples, we report four findings. First, differences between models are driven not by the traits an instrument targets but by a directional response bias, a tendency to respond toward one end of the scale, or one labeled option, regardless of item content; a variance decomposition attributes 81-90% of between-model variation to this bias, against 9-16% in humans. Second, the bias declines with model capability but is not eliminated by it. Third, because bias rather than trait drives responding, an instrument's apparent reliability is almost entirely predicted by its response orthogonality, a term we coin for the proportion of items for which trait and bias point in opposite directions. Fourth, the profile a model appears to have shifts with the items used and can be manufactured through item selection. These results demonstrate that the apparent psychological profiles of LLMs are artifacts of the instrument used to measure them, not properties of the models themselves. As instruments borrowed from human psychology are rarely fully orthogonal and may inherently lack validity for LLMs, we call for dedicated assessments centered on response orthogonality.

Activation steering has emerged as a powerful tool for shaping the behaviour of large language models at inference time, yet most prior work injects a \emph{single} semantic direction into the residual stream. We study the richer setting in which two semantically opposing steering vectors are superimposed -- a regime we call \textbf{Creative Collision}. Concretely, we construct directorial persona vectors for Steven Spielberg (optimistic, redemptive moral valence) and Martin Scorsese (dark, morally ambiguous) via mean-difference activation contrast on curated screenplay-derived corpora, then interpolate between them with a scalar mixing parameter $α\in [0,1]$ and a steering coefficient $λ$. Across five evaluation axes -- moral valence, generation coherence, surface style, directional dominance, and vector geometry -- three principal findings emerge: (i)~Spielberg's representational signature exhibits robust \emph{directional dominance}, suppressing Scorsese's moral influence across almost the entire interpolation range; (ii)~intermediate collision points paradoxically \emph{improve} generation coherence relative to pure single-director steering at high $λ$; and (iii)both personas localise maximally to layer28 of a 40-layer decoder-only transformer, revealing a shared \emph{moral-tone substrate}. These results illuminate the geometry of competing semantic directions in transformer residual streams and have direct implications for controllable creative generation and value-aligned narrative synthesis.

Language Models (LMs) have shown remarkable potential as role-playing chatbots, delivering consistent, stylized interactions when given a specification of a character or user persona. However, applying these capabilities to real-world applications (e.g., ecosystems with numerous NPCs interacting simultaneously) exposes a critical inefficiency due to the excessive computational cost. In this paper, we question the necessity of dedicating a full, generalist model to a single persona, hypothesizing that a specific character identity relies on only a fraction of the model's total capacity. We observe that naively pruning LMs often severely degrades the role-playing performance for a specific persona; it does not distinguish between redundant knowledge and essential character traits. We propose Persona-Pruner, a framework that sculpts a lightweight role-playing model by isolating persona-specific sub-networks from a single description. Our experiments consistently show that Persona-Pruner preserves role-playing performance substantially more effectively than existing state-of-the-art LLM pruning techniques, reducing the performance drop from the dense model by up to 93.8% over the strongest baseline on RoleBench in LLM-as-a-judge score, while still maintaining general LLM capabilities. Code is available at https://github.com/jsu-kim/Persona-Pruner.

Persona-grounded dialogue systems aim to produce responses consistent with a speaker's persona, yet existing methods treat personas as a flat set of sentences and fail to model the high-order relations among persona attributes-e.g., that several persona sentences share a topical category. We propose HyPE (Hypergraph Persona Encoder), a framework that (i) analyzes each persona-bearing text as a (Core, Expression, Sentiment, Category) quadruple, and (ii) organizes persona elements into a hypergraph whose hyperedges are induced by shared category labels. An HyperGCN hypergraph neural network propagates this structure into a persona summary vector and a soft-memory bank that condition the response generator. We further propose Persistent Edge Embeddings (PEE), lightweight per-category learnable priors fused into the HyperGCN message-passing step. On PersonaChat under greedy decoding, HyPE consistently outperforms sentence-level pooling baselines across GPT-2, LLaMA-3.2-3B, and Qwen2.5-3B backbones by demonstrating that structured hyperedge-level persona encoding provides a transferable advantage across model scales.

Anticipating LLM behavioral tendencies from low-cost psychometric probes is critical for safe deployment, but only if self-reports (SR) reliably predict behavior. Recent work documented substantial SR-behavior dissociation in LLMs, but relied on broad personality traits (Big 5) that predict specific behaviors weakly, even in humans. Furthermore, the isolation of conversational sessions combined with weak context matching left open whether LLMs truly lack coherence or whether the conditions needed to detect such coherence were not met. We contrast Big 5 with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), which measures intention targeted to a specific behavior and predicts human behavior substantially better than broad traits. We run experiments across four behavioral tasks and 11 frontier LLMs, while also varying session context and identity induction. We find that SR-behavior coherence exists but is selective. 1) Within a shared conversation, the Theory of Planned Behavior reaches human-level coherence; Big 5 does not. 2) Across separate conversations, coherence survives only for behaviors anchored outside the immediate prompt, such as implicit bias shaped by training, and collapses when behavior is strongly primed by context, as with sycophancy. 3) Persona prompting makes self-reports more consistent across conversations, but does not bring behavior into alignment. These findings suggest that coarse personality frameworks, such as Big 5 may not be the best tools for testing deployment behavior. More task- and behavior-specific instruments are needed, and even these must be evaluated across tasks and contexts.

Language models can state that "the Earth orbits the Sun" and, when role-playing Aristotle, assert the opposite. Recent work argues that persona adoption is fundamental to how language models behave, with models selecting the most appropriate persona for a given context. Does such role-playing merely change the model's outputs, or does it also affect what the model internally represents as truthful? We study this question using the role-play of characters whose beliefs differ from the modern consensus, and induce personas with a number of different methods: prompting, in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and Open Character Training (OCT), and Emergent Misalignment (EM). We measure belief internalization across these approaches with truth probes and with behavioral tests, finding a broad spectrum of belief internalization. Prompting, ICL, and SFT change what the model says with little representational change. EM creates a large, broad shift in the model's truth representation, and OCT a smaller shift that is clearest on the larger model. Understanding when training changes a model's worldview rather than merely its behavior may become increasingly important as AI systems are entrusted with greater autonomy and influence.

With the widespread deployment of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in social interaction, understanding and controlling their behavior under complex personality conditions is essential. This paper introduces explicit personality conditioning and establishes a systematic evaluation framework encompassing single-personality induction, multi-personality induction, and personality switching. Experiments show that personality induction improves image captioning performance but can impair performance on tasks requiring precise reasoning, such as visual question answering (VQA). Balancing and residual effects are observed during multi-trait composition and dynamic switching, indicating that model behavior is co-modulated by both previous and current personality constraints. Existing prompt-based personality induction methods show limited transferability to multimodal settings. Our work reveals the dynamic and complex nature of personality modeling in MLLMs and underscores the need for robust, tailored methods for personality induction and evaluation. The code will be released when the paper is accepted.