arXiv:2609.22255v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Existing approaches to persona simulation with Large Language Models (LLMs) mostly rely on shallow character descriptions that fail to sustain coherent...
By Rotem Dror, Zohar Elyoseph, Yuval Haber, Elad Refoua, Oshrat Ayalon, Adir Solomon
arXiv:2605. 09159v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent work shows that large language models (LLMs) encode behavioral traits ("personas") as linear directions in activation space, often called "persona vectors".
By Nils A. Herrmann, Leander Girrbach, Kirill Bykov, Zeynep Akata
arXiv:2604. 24079v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) reveal inherent and distinctive personas through dialogue.
By Jisoo Yang, Jongwon Ryu, Minuk Ma, Trung X. Pham, Junyeong Kim
The paper examines whether fine‑tuning large language models (LLMs) with personality‑labelled data improves their ability to act as socially interactive agents. Two small open‑weight LLMs were fine‑tuned on a corpus of personality‑labelled social media posts and dialogues, and the resulting models were evaluated in various social interaction scenarios by independent LLM judges. The findings show that the fine‑tuned models do not outperform their baseline counterparts in role‑playing personalities, though they offer comparable text quality and increased linguistic diversity for the Qwen models; low inter‑rater agreement limits confidence in the results, suggesting future work should focus on training data quality and domain alignment.
By Tim Krabbe, Xiaodan Shi
arXiv:2510. 22170v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Persona conditioning is widely used to steer large language model (LLM) behavior, but it is unclear whether it induces stable behavioral structure or superficial variation.
By Alexandra Yost, Shreyans Jain, Shivam Raval, Grant Corser, Allen Roush, Nina Xu, Jacqueline Hammack, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Amirali Abdullah
The paper introduces UPHELD, a large benchmark of human-to-human dialogues written by professional script writers, featuring realistic turn densities and over 36,000 per-turn human annotations. It evaluates existing automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge methods, finding them unreliable against expert human judgment. Using UPHELD, the authors develop a Mixture-of-Judges framework that improves correlation with human assessments by about 30%.
By Ilija Subasic, Andrew Rabinovich, Zhao Chen