Creating an Atomic User Model for Personality-Aware Large Language Model Interaction
-cross Abstract: Assistants built on large language models are expected to write in their users' own voice.
Arxiv 2 versions
-
14 new sentences, beginning: “-cross Abstract: Assistants built on large language models are expected to write in their users' own voice.”
Creating an Atomic User Model for Personality-Aware Large Language Model Interaction
-cross Abstract: Assistants built on large language models are expected to write in their users' own voice. Most systems summarise the user's preferences and include the summary in the prompt. This is the wrong way round. Preferences are only the surface of a person and change with the task, while the underlying personality stays the same, so storing preferences alone means relearning the user afresh whenever the task changes. This paper makes four contributions. First, we describe an effect we call personality seepage: the wording of a prompt carries traces of the writer's personality, which the assistant copies without knowing the writer. Second, we propose the Atomic User Model (AUM), a readable profile with a stable identity core surrounded by four layers covering psychological, cognitive, experiential, behavioral, and social details, plus notes on inner conflict and authenticity. Third, instead of inserting the entire profile, we use AUM as a searchable index, in which a task classifier, a selection step, and a budgeted retriever pass along only a few relevant fields. Fourth, we test the pipeline with 16 simulated users, 6 style-sensitive tasks, and 3 seeds. Eight retrieved fields matched the writing quality of the whole profile, while using only 23 percent of the context (211 tokens instead of 915). They scored 0.24 points higher than a plain preference note on a five-point scale. Accuracy in picking a user's own writing from four samples rose from 14.9 to 42.7 percent, where guessing gives 25 percent. Four pre-registered controls showed no effect, so the gain comes from the profile's structure rather than the search method. Personalization helps most for the users for whom a generic assistant imitates them the worst.
-
Creating an Atomic User Model for Personality-Aware Large Language Model Interaction
Assistants built on large language models are expected to write as their user would, and the dominant approach is single-channel: preferences summarised from conversation history and reinserted into context. This inverts the order of inference. Preferences are the task-dependent surface of a comparatively stable personality structure, so a system storing only preferences relearns the person whenever the task changes. First, we characterise personality seepage, where a prompt's linguistic surface carries a personality fingerprint the assistant mirrors without access to the personality behind it. Second, we propose the Atomic User Model (AUM), a human-readable representation organising a person as a stable identity nucleus with four interpretable shells (psychological, cognitive and experiential, behavioural, and social), plus cross-shell entries recording internal conflict and authenticity. Third, we treat AUM as a retrieval index over a person rather than a prompt prefix, with a pipeline where a task classifier, component-selection function and budgeted retriever return a small payload of fields at generation time. Fourth, we evaluate it with sixteen language-model-simulated participants, six style-sensitive tasks and three seeds, plus a synthetic scaling study of the retriever. Retrieving eight fields matched the style fidelity of the full user model on 23% of the context (211 tokens against 915), improved on flat preference notes by 0.24 points on a five-point scale (p < 0.001, dz = 0.50), and raised forced-choice identification of the participant's own voice from 14.9% to 42.7% (25% chance). Four pre-registered controls returned null, locating the effect in the representation rather than the search over it. The benefit is largest for participants the un-personalised assistant reproduces worst (rho = -0.61, p = 0.013): personalisation is worth most to those the default serves least.
Versions are compared on the headline and summary the publisher puts in their feed. An edit to the body of an article that leaves both untouched will not appear here.
Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — arXiv
It ranks mainly on source trust: arXiv is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.
It clears the bar without leading strongly on any one factor. A middling score is not a claim that the story is important — only that nothing about it is weak.
Link-outLink-out, because it scores 0.40, below the 0.50 bar for a write-up. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration | 0.35 | 0.39 | +0.135 34% | 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true. |
| Source trustleads | 0.25 | 0.85 | +0.212 53% | arXiv is the highest-trust source on this story and is first-party — the organisation announcing its own news. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged. |
| Pickup rate | 0.20 | 0.00 | +0.000 0% | One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate. |
| Freshness | 0.20 | 0.27 | +0.054 14% | Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent. |
Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.
What happened
-cross Abstract: Assistants built on large language models are expected to write in their users' own voice. Most systems summarise the user's preferences and include the summary in the prompt. Preferences are only the surface of a person and change with the task, while the underlying personality stays the same, so storing preferences alone means relearning the user afresh whenever the task changes. First, we describe an effect we call personality seepage: the wording of a prompt carries traces of the writer's personality, which the assistant copies without knowing the writer.
How this story arrived
Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.
- 01 Arxivfirst-party first seen Creating an Atomic User Model for Personality-Aware Large Language Model Interaction
Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.