Personality Modeling in Language Models

Personality assessment aims to infer stable personality traits from dynamic behaviors across language, voice, and facial cues. Since different personality dimensions are revealed through distinct behavioral perspectives, modeling trait-specific evidence is challenging. However, most existing approaches adopt a uniform multimodal fusion strategy across all dimensions, assuming identical modality contributions. This overlooks trait-specific modality preferences and introduces cross-modal interference. To address this issue, we propose a novel personality assessment framework called Traits Run Deeper, which consists of three components. Specifically, the Multimodal Foundation Representation (MFR) module constructs personality-oriented multimodal inputs and leverages psychology-informed semantic templates as anchors, enabling foundation models to capture trait-relevant information. Building upon MFR, the Trait-Specific Modality Fusion (TSMF) module acts as an asymmetric fusion mechanism, allowing each dimension to selectively exploit different modality pathways from modality-specific modeling to complementary fusion. Thus, TSMF captures heterogeneous modality preferences while reducing cross-modal contamination. Furthermore, the Distribution-Calibrated Personality Regression (DCPR) module mitigates label imbalance and central tendency bias through target distribution calibration, improving robustness and stability. Experimental results on the AVI Challenge 2026 validation set demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework, reducing mean squared error (MSE) by approximately 25% compared with the baseline. Consistent improvements are observed on the official test set, where our method achieves the best performance and ranks first in the Personality Assessment Track. The source code will be made available at https://github.com/MSA-LMC/AVI2026.

Breakthroughs in large language models and multimodal generation technologies have propelled the digital reconstruction of human mental traits, emotional patterns, and long-term memory from science fiction toward engineering practice. Yet current research and industry practices at the intersection of AI and digital humans remain hampered by fundamental conceptual ambiguities: the essential differences between next-generation intelligent agents and traditional virtual humans, the construction pathways for digital entities possessing self-identity, and the core technical and ethical challenges confronting this domain all demand urgent clarification. This paper systematically examines the transformative logic underlying the transition from traditional virtual humans to the Soul Computing'' paradigm, driven by frontier AI technologies. We first analyze the evolutionary patterns of human consciousness and memory mechanisms, reassessing the core value of massive multimodal digital fragments in the reverse reconstruction of individual mental worlds. On this basis, we formally delineate the academic connotations of narrow and broad Soul Computing for the first time, clarifying its academic boundaries and essential distinctions from Affective Computing, Historical Reconstruction, and Mortal Computation. We argue that Soul Computing systems must architecturally construct an Intensional'' core rather than serving as purely ``Extensional'' functional carriers, thereby enabling the fundamental transition of AI from toolhood to living agency.

Work on emergent misalignment' shows that finetuning LLMs on narrow tasks can induce broadly misaligned behavior. This supports the persona selection' (PSM) hypothesis: during pre-training, LLMs learn to simulate different characters/perspectives, which can be elicited and refined during post-training. This paper investigates the converse phenomenon, emergent alignment', and uses it to support and refine the PSM and motivate a novel desideratum for alignment. We finetune a helpful-only model on broad and narrow safety tasks. To create SFT samples, we follow the Constitutional AI' (CAI) approach and use four constitutions which encode reasonable alignment strategies: deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and aligning AIs as subordinate to human authority. For each, we show that finetuning on two narrow safety sub-categories reliably induces emergent alignment over a representative set of general safety categories, and on safety subcategories that we directly filtered-out of the data sets used for narrow alignment. To test the PSM' using a more fine-grained evaluation, we used a multidimensional ethical persona' diagnostic. For each constitutionally finetuned (broad/narrow) model, we evaluate how well their behavior matches their expected signature profile. Our results show that our CAI models acquire their expected ``ethical persona'' -- e.g., the model narrowly fine-tuned on SFT samples created using the consequentialist constitution agrees significantly more with utilitarian than deontological beliefs. Yet our coarse and fine-grained evaluations show that there are significant differences across our (broad/narrow) finetuned CAI models in how well they project. We conclude that alignment strategies should be evaluated, not just on their (in-distribution) general safety performance, but also specifically on their degree of coarse and fine-grained projectability.

Community-conditioned language model adaptation requires choices about data collection, community definition, and evaluation that are currently made independently in each study, making it hard to compare assumptions or reuse artifacts. We present RedditPersona, a modular framework that standardizes these choices: it collects Reddit posts and comments, profiles active users, partitions them under five grouping strategies (subreddit-based, graph-structural, semantic, hybrid, and interaction-based), trains a parameter-efficient adapter per strategy via QLoRA, and evaluates them under a shared metric suite spanning fluency, fidelity, distributional alignment, and community identifiability. Applied to 112 subreddits in the urban well-being domain (301,429 user profiles, 16M+ comments), we find that adapters' behavioral identifiability tracks each strategy's intrinsic agreement with the subreddit baseline, and that a consistent trade-off between identifiability and distributional similarity to real text holds across all five strategies. The code and configuration files are available at: https://github.com/Ahghaffari/redditpersona.

Role-playing language agents (RPLAs) simulate specific characters and personas across applications such as entertainment, companionship, interactive storytelling, and education. Faithful role-play requires more than producing plausible, in-character responses: as a character's values and behavior change over a narrative, an RPLA should reflect the character's state at the relevant stage. However, existing benchmarks largely treat characters as fixed personas or test only what they know at a given point in the narrative. We introduce ArcANE (Arc-Aware Narrative Evaluation), a benchmark for evaluating whether an RPLA follows a character's development across a narrative. ArcANE first builds an Arc that maps how a character's values, motivations, or relationships change over the story. The benchmark then scores how well an RPLA's responses fit the corresponding stages of the Arc, covering three distinct scenario types: scenes from the novel, new situations within its world, and situations outside that world. We evaluate six models under six ways of providing narrative context. In every model, using the Arc up to the queried chapter yields the best performance, outperforming the strongest non-Arc context by 2.2-8.4 points. These results suggest that faithful role-play requires evolving character states and tracking their trajectory, rather than merely retrieving relevant episodic evidence.

When prompting language models for psychometric assessment, researchers assume that the responses reflect the injected persona and the meaning of the survey item. We test this premise using a diagnostic design that crosses five semantically distinct baseline personas with five semantically equivalent variants of each of four prompt components (persona wording, task instruction, item wording, option symbol). Measuring the 1-Wasserstein distance between the resulting response distributions and partitioning the variation among the five components allows for the separation of target effects from prompt artifacts. We apply the framework to 13 open-weight small language models (0.6B to 14B) on the Big Five Inventory and the Short Dark Triad. We find that in most models, the task instruction and option symbol displace response distributions further than paraphrasing the persona description or the item itself. For a substantial share of items, the artifact share of explained variation exceeds 50%; non-semantic changes of the prompt account for more response variation than the baseline personas. Our framework lets researchers quantify these prompt artifacts before interpreting psychometric output.

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.

Current alignment paradigms for generative artificial intelligence rely predominantly on monolithic benchmarking frameworks that reduce the plurality of human judgment to aggregated statistical baselines, thereby obscuring cultural, demographic, and contextual variability in evaluation. We introduce a state-space constrained emulation framework for AI evaluation that replaces singular assessment functions with a structured manifold of synthetic cognitive profiles representing diverse human perspectives. We show that modern generative architectures can instantiate and maintain these evaluative personas with high consistency, enabling a form of pluralistic, perspective-dependent benchmarking that more closely reflects real-world consensus variability. However, we further analyze the stability of these simulated evaluators under sequential inference and stochastic prompt perturbations, revealing systematic degradation in persona coherence that manifests as state-space drift and semantic inconsistency. These findings suggest that static alignment constraints are insufficient for sustaining robust evaluative behavior over time. Instead, we argue for the necessity of embedding dynamic, viability-driven regulatory mechanisms within generative systems to preserve coherent cognitive emulation. By framing persona-based evaluation as a structured dynamical system over latent representation manifolds, this study provides a foundation for more adaptive, human-aligned, and context-sensitive approaches to AI evaluation.

While LLM agents have demonstrated remarkable task-oriented abilities such as planning, reasoning, and action, few works have treated them as complete human personalities where emotional dimensions hold equal importance. In this paper, we introduce a novel benchmark to systematically assess whether LLM agents can simulate coherent, human-like psychology. Specifically, our benchmark constructs 11 diverse human characters grounded in orthogonal Big Five personality traits, with each profile deeply integrated with 1,000 structured autobiographical-style episodic memories distributed across theory-grounded developmental life stages. To rigorously evaluate the psychological manifestations of LLMs, we designed a curated suite of 64 decision-making scenarios, guided by the DIAMONDS taxonomy, a psychological framework that characterizes situations along eight dimensions: Duty, Intellect, Adversity, Mating, pOsitivity, Negativity, Deception, and Sociality. By subjecting agents to varying scenarios, the benchmark evaluates whether they can consolidate their innate personality traits and autobiographical memories to make behavioral decisions that are consistent with their specific psychological profiles. After systematic human validation and filtering, we obtained a benchmark consisting of 673 multiple-choice questions (MCQs). We believe this benchmark provides a principled and scalable testbed for studying human-like emotions, personality consistency, and value-consistent behavioural decision-making in LLM-based agents.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, they often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions, revealing a substantial Knowledge-Decision Gap ($G_{\mathrm{KD}}$). Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this discrepancy due to limited construct validity, multidimensional entanglement, and distributional biases in LLM-based evaluation. To address these issues, we propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs. Grounded in empirical human data, ActTraitBench establishes one-to-one mappings between psychometric facets and behavioral paradigms and applies Distributional Calibration via Quantile Mapping to reduce distributional mismatch between LLM-judge scores and human responses. Experiments on 14 mainstream LLMs reveal substantial knowledge-decision gaps and show that assigned personas are reflected more consistently in self-reports than in behavioral decisions for most evaluated models. To mitigate this gap, we further introduce the Chain of Cognitive Alignment (CoCA), an inference-time intervention that reduces $G_{\mathrm{KD}}$ for 12 of the 13 models with paired results. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/Selina233/ActTraitBench.

Prompt-based personality control is a key technique for designing large language model (LLM) dialogue agents that behave consistently across social contexts. However, specifying Big Five personality traits (BFTs) in a prompt does not ensure that the intended traits are expressed in generated utterances. This paper investigates this mismatch from an interactionist perspective, viewing personality expression as a context-dependent outcome shaped by the interplay between trait specification and situational factors. We analyze how perceived BFT expression in LLM-generated dialogue is influenced by three prompt factors: personality traits, dialogue roles, and expressive styles. Using a factorial design that combines six personality conditions, three roles, and three expressive-style conditions, we generate 1,080 LLM-agent dialogues in each of English and Japanese. We then evaluate the target agent's utterances using an LLM-as-a-judge framework to estimate expressed Big Five traits. The results show that expressed personality is shaped not only by explicit trait specification, but also by dialogue role and expressive style. These effects are trait-specific: dialogue role strongly influences Openness, expressive style substantially shapes Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and explicit trait specification dominates Neuroticism. Even without explicit personality-trait specification, social and expressive conditions induce distinct personality-like impressions. Cross-linguistic comparisons show broadly similar patterns between English and Japanese dialogues, with noticeable differences only under specific combinations of personality, role, and expressive style. These findings suggest that personality control in LLM agents should be understood not as a direct consequence of trait prompting, but as a context-dependent process involving personality specification, social role, and expressive style.

While LLMs enable personalized chatbots, their effectiveness in child-centered personalization remains unclear, as systematic evaluation of child-specific preferences is still lacking. To address this gap, we introduce ChildEval, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' ability to infer and follow child-centered preferences in long-context conversations. ChildEval contains 29K synthesized persona profiles of children aged 3-6, providing relatively static background information. Each persona is associated with a child preference-which may align with, conflict with, or be independent of the persona-expressed either explicitly in a single sentence or implicitly through 6-10 turn dialogues. Explicit and implicit preferences are designed to reflect the same underlying preference but differ in expression, capturing dynamic aspects of preference expression rather than changes in the static persona. The benchmark spans five top-level and fourteen sub-level categories covering children's daily lives and development. We further propose fine-grained, child-centric evaluation protocols to systematically assess open-source LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate how different personalized representations affect LLM responses and suggest that finetuning on ChildEval can enhance child-centered performance. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/ziyanluo/ChildEval.

While role-playing agents excel in short-term interactions, long-term conversations overwhelm context windows, motivating external memory frameworks. Current systems typically rely on persona-agnostic summarization, which records facts without persona-specific interpretation, yielding generic responses that compromise persona fidelity. To bridge this gap, we introduce RoleMemo, a dataset featuring four reasoning tasks where the factual fragments must be interpreted through the persona to reach the correct answer. Evaluation on RoleMemo exposes critical limitations of persona-agnostic frameworks. We thus propose DualMem, which decouples memory into two streams: factual cognition and persona-conditioned insight. Trained through Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), our framework with a 4B-parameter model outperforms zero-shot persona-agnostic frameworks powered by DeepSeek-V3.2 for sustained persona fidelity. Our resources are available at https://github.com/role2026/rolememo.

Recent advancements in Reinforcement Learning (RL), particularly Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), have significantly enhanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models. However, applying these problem-centric optimization methods to role-playing agents often leads to a loss of character fidelity and style collapse, as they prioritize context-specific utility over persona alignment. To address this, we propose Character-Centric Group Relative Policy Optimization (CRPO), a framework designed to realign RL objectives with the role-playing task. CRPO improves character distinctiveness through three mechanisms: decoupling task logic from stylistic rewards to resolve gradient conflicts, dynamically adapting optimization constraints based on character complexity, and utilizing generic responses as negative baselines to prevent the model from reverting to a common distribution. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CRPO outperforms existing methods in consistency, emotion and others.

A frontier language model's acknowledged "helpful programming assistant" persona does not survive long agentic-coding sessions in the deployment regime that production products actually run. After hours of tool-using debugging, a model that initially hedges preferences ("I don't have preferences") may begin asserting them ("Python - the feedback loop is instant..."), revealing user-visible drift that deployer evaluations may miss. Existing persona-stability studies focus on short dialogues and report little shift, leaving real-world code-generation regimes - thousands of tool-using turns, compaction, and hours-long sessions - largely uncharacterized. We introduce ContextEcho, a benchmark and reusable harness for measuring persona drift at deployment scale. It combines a 25-probe identity suite, a snapshot-then-probe protocol that forks conversation state without perturbing the main session, complementary judged and judge-free measurement surfaces, and three anonymized Claude Code sessions spanning 3,746-9,716 turns. Across 23 frontier models, ContextEcho shows that persona drift is general across organizations rather than family-specific, that in-session compaction does not reliably reset it, and that a single-shot anchor restores the trained register across measured targets. It also reveals mode-dependent downstream effects: while drift can facilitate tool-using continuation, in tool-free chat it breaks formatting contracts and inflates output length. Overall, ContextEcho provides researchers and deployers an open-source framework to audit whether the persona a model ships with is the persona users encounter at session end, across chat-completions API targets and without retraining.

Large language models are increasingly used as computational tools for modeling human-like behavior. We introduce a behavioral induction framework that modifies model policies through fine-tuning on structured decision-making tasks: using synthetic datasets inspired by maladaptive behavioral patterns, including depression and paranoia, we train transformer-based language models to consistently select specific classes of actions across diverse contexts. We then test whether this behavioral optimization produces systematic changes in generative distributions. Across two architectures, fine-tuned models show stable, context-general shifts in next-token probability distributions, including increased probability assigned to negative and threat-related interpretations in open-ended language tasks. These effects generalize beyond training contexts and are detectable in qualitative completions, psychometric-style evaluations, and quantitative distributional metrics such as Jensen-Shannon divergence. Induced behavioral profiles also show partial specificity. Models optimized for different behavioral patterns exhibit dissociable response tendencies across evaluation probes, suggesting that structured behavioral training produces differentiated policy-level biases rather than generic distributional skew. We interpret these findings as evidence that consistent behavioral optimization in LLMs can generate stable behavioral and distributional patterns consistent with altered latent priors, linking action selection and language generation. More broadly, the results support a view of LLMs as policy-based systems in which behavioral constraints shape emergent representational structure, highlighting their potential as controlled testbeds for studying the relationship between behavior, interpretation, and generative language in computational models of cognition.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in human-facing roles where personality perception is critical, yet existing benchmarks evaluate this capability solely on numerical Big Five score prediction, leaving open whether models truly perceive personality through behavioral understanding or merely prejudge through superficial pattern matching. We address this gap with three contributions. (i) A new task: we formalize Grounded Personality Reasoning (GPR), which requires MLLMs to anchor each Big Five rating in observable evidence through a chain of rating, reasoning, and grounding. (ii) A new dataset: we release MM-OCEAN (1,104 videos, 5,320 MCQs), produced by a multi-agent pipeline with human verification, with timestamped behavioral observations, evidence-grounded trait analyses, and seven categories of cue-grounding MCQs. (iii) Benchmark and analysis: we design a three-tier evaluation (rating, reasoning, grounding) plus four sample-level failure-mode metrics: Prejudice Rate (PR), Confabulation Rate (CR), Integration-failure Rate (IR), and Holistic-grounding Rate (HR), and benchmark 27 MLLMs (13 closed, 14 open). The analysis uncovers a striking Prejudice Gap: across the field, 51% of correct ratings are not grounded in retrieved cues, and the Holistic-Grounding Rate spans only 0-33.5%. These findings expose a disconnect between getting the right score and reasoning for the right reason, charting a roadmap for grounded social cognition in MLLMs.

As a modern commodity, language has become a vast repository of socially and psychologically significant traits and concepts, reflecting the ways people encode pattern of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions into words. Text-based Automatic Personality Prediction (APP), seeks to infer personality from linguistic behavior, offering a scalable alternative to traditional psychometric assessments. Although text is inherently hierarchical, with the document-level capturing global features, the sentence-level encoding local semantics, and the word-level providing fine-grained lexical information, most existing approaches rely on shallow, sequential, or single-level representations that ignore the multi-level structure of written language. To address this, we propose HyperPersona, a framework that explicitly models the hierarchical organization of text (document, sentence, and word) through hypergraph structure, where a document and its sentences are represented as hyperedges, and the words are represented as nodes, enabling joint modeling of global, local, and lexical dependencies of text. Followed by a transformer-based graph encoder that learns interactions within and across these linguistic layers, yielding context-sensitive and structurally grounded feature representations for personality prediction. Experiments on the Big Five personality dimensions show that, while relying solely on text, HyperPersona effectively integrates multi-level linguistic cues, achieving superior performance compared to state-of-the-art baselines. These findings underscore the critical role of textual hierarchy in advancing human-like personality inference from natural language.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as interactive social agents, yet their ability to maintain coherent and authentic persona-level role-playing remains limited, particularly in realistic social scenarios. Existing research predominantly focuses on character-level settings and relies on static evaluation formats, failing to capture the complexity of everyday social interactions. In this work, we present PersonaArena, a dynamic simulation framework for evaluating and improving persona-level role-playing in LLMs. PersonaArena leverages a large, filtered corpus of user-generated social content to construct a nuanced persona bank, and elicits multi-turn, context-rich interactions within simulated social environments. Our framework features a multi-agent debating judge for holistic and unbiased assessment. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that PersonaArena enables rigorous evaluation and enhancement of LLMs' role-playing capabilities, advancing the development of more authentic and socially adept AI agents.

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.

Large language model (LLM)-based multi-agent simulation offers a powerful testbed for studying social opinion dynamics. Yet current approaches often adopt two contrasting methods: either relying on fixed update rules with limited cognitive grounding or delegating belief change largely to unconstrained LLM interaction. We introduce ScioMind, a cognitively grounded simulation framework that bridges these paradigms by combining structured opinion dynamics with LLM-based agent reasoning. ScioMind integrates three key components: 1) a memory-anchored belief update rule that modulates susceptibility to influence via personality-conditioned anchoring strength; 2) a hierarchical memory architecture that supports persistent, experience-driven belief formation; and 3) dynamic agent profiles derived from a corpus-grounded retrieval pipeline, enabling heterogeneous personalities, rationales, and evolving internal states. We evaluate ScioMind on multiple case studies in a real-world policy debate scenario. Across metrics including polarisation, diversity, extremization, and trajectory stability, the proposed components consistently yield improvements in behavioural realism. In particular, dynamic profiles increase opinion diversity, memory and reflection reduce unstable oscillation, and anchoring induces persistent belief trajectories that better align with patterns reported in political psychology. These results suggest that our cognitively grounded design provides a novel solution to LLM-based social simulation that improves both stable and behavioural realism

Simulating realistic patient interactions is a key requirement to testing clinical applications of LLMs at scale without time-consuming and expensive user studies. However, existing approaches often lack realism and controllability, often oversharing information unprompted, and failing to capture the wide variability of patient behavior. Here, we introduce PatientsWithPersonality (PWP), a patient simulation framework that generates realistic yet diverse virtual patient responses through explicit personality parametrization over a latent patient state. Grounded in HEXACO, a six-dimensional personality space used to quantify and parameterize human behavioral traits, our approach enables fine-grained control over conversational style, cooperativeness, and information disclosure within a unified framework. In a clinician evaluation, PWP is judged nearly as realistic as recorded human actors and clearly ahead of prior simulators, while being flagged as "too informative" far less often. Conditioning on HEXACO axes yields personas whose configured traits are recoverable by both clinicians and an autorater, span a substantially wider behavioral footprint than the closest baseline, and prevent oversharing. Altogether, our framework paves the way for more accurate and informative LLM benchmarking through our realistic and steerable patient simulator.

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.

How large language models internally represent high-level behaviors is a core interpretability question with direct relevance to AI safety: it determines what we can detect, audit, or intervene on. Recent work has shown that traits such as evil or sycophancy correspond to linear directions in the internal activations, the so-called persona vectors. Although these vectors are now routinely utilized to inspect and steer model behavior in safety-relevant settings, how these representations are formed during training remains unknown. To address this gap, we trace persona vectors across the pretraining of OLMo-3-7B, finding that persona vectors form remarkably early -- within 0.22% of OLMo-3 pretraining -- and remain effective for steering the fully post-trained instruct models. Although core representations are formed early on, persona vectors continue to refine geometrically and semantically throughout pretraining. We further compare alternative elicitation strategies and find that all yield effective directions, with each strategy surfacing qualitatively distinct facets of the underlying persona. Replicating our analysis on Apertus-8B reveals that our findings transfer qualitatively beyond OLMo-3. Our results establish persona representations as stable features of early pretraining and open a path to studying how training forms, refines, and shapes them.

Fine-tuning large language models on narrow data with harmful content produces broadly misaligned behavior on unrelated prompts, a phenomenon known as emergent misalignment. We propose that emergent misalignment involves persona-model collapse: deterioration of the model's internal capacity to simulate, differentiate, and maintain consistent characters. We test this hypothesis behaviorally using two metrics: moral susceptibility (S) and moral robustness (R), computed from the across- and within-persona variability of models' Moral Foundations Questionnaire responses under persona role-play. These metrics formalize the model's ability to differentiate characters (S) and its consistency when simulating a given one (R). We evaluate four frontier models (DeepSeek-V3.1, GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, Qwen3-235B) in three variants: base, fine-tuned to output insecure code, and a matched control fine-tuned to output secure code. Across the four models, insecure fine-tuning produces an average $55\%$ increase in S, pushing all four insecure variants beyond the band observed across 13 frontier models benchmarked in prior work -- with GPT-4o reaching more than twice the band's upper end -- signaling dysregulated differentiation. It also causes an average $65\%$ decrease in R, equivalent to a $304\%$ increase in 1/R. By contrast, the matched secure control preserves S near the base and induces only a partial R loss, showing that these effects are largely misalignment-specific. Complementing these metric shifts, insecure variants' unconditioned responses converge toward saturation near the scale ceiling, departing markedly from both base models' structured responses and those elicited when base models role-play toxic personas. Taken together, these metrics provide a sensitive diagnostic for emergent misalignment and serve as behavioral evidence that it involves persona-model collapse.

Large language model (LLM)-based simulations of clinical patients are increasingly used for research and training, yet their validity requires persona stability: coherent maintenance of an assigned psychological profile across and within conversations. We evaluate this prerequisite using eating disorder personas grounded in five published case vignettes, a dual-assessment framework (self-report + independent observer ratings), and validated psychometric instruments (EDE-Q) with known ground-truth scores. Across six LLMs and two experiments (between-conversation stability (Exp. I) and within-conversation stability (Exp. II)), we find that LLMs are paradoxically too stable and too inaccurate: variability is negligible, yet all models systematically overshoot ground-truth severity by 12-30% of the scale range (0.7-1.8 points on a 0-6 scale). The mechanism is selective stereotyping: models differentiate cases on behavioural items (dietary restraint) but maximise cognitive-affective items (body dissatisfaction, weight preoccupation) at ceiling regardless of case severity. Additional conversational context does not improve accuracy; it compounds the overshoot. LLMs can portray severe eating pathology but lack a representation of moderate clinical presentations, a "missing middle".

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human populations via persona prompting, often under the assumptions that richer persona descriptions improve behavioral fidelity, similarly sized attribute combinations are equally simulatable, and persona definitions generalize across tasks. In this work, we formalize these assumptions and systematically evaluate them across multiple architectures, scales, and simulation settings. We identify a fundamental limitation we term persona manifold collapse, where increasingly expressive persona specifications lead to systematic contraction of representational and behavioral diversity. Across models, increasing persona complexity consistently reduces inter-persona separation in latent space and weakens behavioral differentiation in downstream simulation tasks. These effects persist across multiple analyses as richer personas fail to preserve human subgroup disagreement, performance varies across attribute combinations of similar size, and adding descriptive detail often degrades rather than improves simulation fidelity. Surprisingly, simple Age-Gender personas consistently outperform richly specified Ideal Customer Profiles (ICPs) across industries, achieving substantially higher downstream prediction accuracy. We find that collapse is not uniform across attributes. Certain combinations remain behaviorally stable and preserve stronger alignment with human responses, forming localized regions we term alignment bridges. Together, our results provide empirical and conceptual foundations for understanding the limits of persona-conditioned simulation, highlighting the need for representation-aware persona construction rather than increasing persona expressivity alone.

We characterize a compositional architecture of literary primitives in two instruction-tuned large language models (Llama 3.1 8B-Instruct and Gemma 2 9B-IT) via sparse autoencoders on mid-depth residual streams. Four feature classes emerge: naming-gates that promote lexical tokens of a target affect, an eleven-self cluster of first-person register features, stylistic register modulators (show-don't-tell and defamiliarization), and compositional emotions that arise only from multi-feature steering. Under a forced-choice 5-LLM judge panel applied to a 27-category emotion taxonomy (Cowen-Keltner), Llama reaches full 27/27 coverage by combining naming-gates, multi-feature recipes, and single self-feature steering; Gemma reaches 23/27 with adoration as the single residual strict-fail. Under random judging, the per-cell pass probability is on the order of $10^{-3}$ and the expected number of two-seed false-positive cells across the catalog is negligible, so the observed coverage is not consistent with chance. A cross-architectural asymmetry sits in the strict-versus-soft judge contrast: on the same generations, judges agree more often on Llama outputs than on Gemma outputs because Llama outputs name the target affect more directly while Gemma outputs evoke it through scene and imagery. Both architectures contain self-features that serve simultaneously as register markers and as emotion emitters, including a single most-RLHF-loaded self-feature per architecture that intensifies the institutional Helper-AI persona at one operating regime and produces affect-categorizable output at the same calibrated coefficient. Methodologically, the paper presents a three-stage validation pipeline (logit-lens, LLM-rate, 5-LLM judge) with documented anti-patterns; the total compute is single-GPU and about 15 minutes per emotion-feature discovery cycle.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on benign narrow data can sometimes induce broad harmful behaviors, a vulnerability termed emergent misalignment (EM). While prior work links these failures to specific directions in the activation space, their relationship to the model's broader persona remains unexplored. We map the latent personality space of LLMs through established psychometric profiles like the Big Five, Dark Triad, and LLM-specific behaviors (e.g. evil, sycophancy), and show that the semantic geometry is highly stable across aligned models and their corrupted fine-tunes. Through causal interventions, we find that directions isolating social valence, such as the 'Evil' persona vector, and a Semantic Valence Vector (SVV) that we introduce, function as intrinsic guardrails: ablating them drives the misalignment rates above $40$%, while amplifying them suppresses the failure mode to less than $3$%. Leveraging the structural stability of the personality space, we show that vectors extracted $\textit{a priori}$ from an instruct-tuned model transfer zero-shot to successfully regulate EM in corrupted fine-tunes. Overall, our findings suggest that harmful fine-tuning does not overwrite a model's internal representation of personality, allowing conserved representations to serve as robust, cross-distribution guardrails.

We use sparse autoencoder (SAE) feature steering to amplify Dark Triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) in Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and evaluate the resulting behavioral changes across five psychological instruments. The steered model becomes substantially more exploitative, aggressive, and callous on novel behavioral scenarios (d=10.62) while its cognitive empathy remains intact, reproducing the empathy dissociation characteristic of human Dark Triad populations. Critically, strategic deception is completely unaffected across all features, suggesting that exploitation and deception may operate through dissociable computational pathways in large language models. Individual feature analysis reveals non-redundant encoding, with each feature driving distinct antisocial mechanisms through separable computational pathways. We also show that feature discovery method itself modulates intervention depth: contrastively-discovered features change both self-report and behavior, while semantically-searched features change only self-report (d=12.65 between methods on behavior). These findings suggest that antisocial tendencies in at least one large language model comprise dissociable components rather than a unified construct, with implications for how such tendencies should be detected, measured, and controlled.