In this work, we tackle the challenge of embedding realistic human personality traits into LLMs. Previous approaches have primarily focused on prompt-based methods that describe the behavior associated with the desired personality traits, suffering from realism and validity issues. To address these limitations, we introduce BIG5-CHAT, a large-scale dataset containing 100,000 dialogues designed to ground models in how humans express their personality in text. Leveraging this dataset, we explore Supervised Fine-Tuning and Direct Preference Optimization as training-based methods to align LLMs more naturally with human personality patterns. Our methods outperform prompting on personality assessments such as BFI and IPIP-NEO, with trait correlations more closely matching human data. Furthermore, our experiments reveal that models trained to exhibit higher conscientiousness, higher agreeableness, lower extraversion, and lower neuroticism display better performance on reasoning tasks, aligning with psychological findings on how these traits impact human cognitive performance. To our knowledge, this work is the first comprehensive study to demonstrate how training-based methods can shape LLM personalities through learning from real human behaviors.

The task of persona-steered text generation requires large language models (LLMs) to generate text that reflects the distribution of views that an individual fitting a persona could have. People have multifaceted personas, but prior work on bias in LLM-generated opinions has only explored multiple-choice settings or one-dimensional personas. We define an incongruous persona as a persona with multiple traits where one trait makes its other traits less likely in human survey data, e.g. political liberals who support increased military spending. We find that LLMs are 9.7% less steerable towards incongruous personas than congruous ones, sometimes generating the stereotypical stance associated with its demographic rather than the target stance. Models that we evaluate that are fine-tuned with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) are more steerable, especially towards stances associated with political liberals and women, but present significantly less diverse views of personas. We also find variance in LLM steerability that cannot be predicted from multiple-choice opinion evaluation. Our results show the importance of evaluating models in open-ended text generation, as it can surface new LLM opinion biases. Moreover, such a setup can shed light on our ability to steer models toward a richer and more diverse range of viewpoints.

Transfer learning has proven to be crucial in advancing the state of speech and natural language processing research in recent years. In speech, a model pre-trained by self-supervised learning transfers remarkably well on multiple tasks. However, the lack of a consistent evaluation methodology is limiting towards a holistic understanding of the efficacy of such models. SUPERB was a step towards introducing a common benchmark to evaluate pre-trained models across various speech tasks. In this paper, we introduce SUPERB-SG, a new benchmark focusing on evaluating the semantic and generative capabilities of pre-trained models by increasing task diversity and difficulty over SUPERB. We use a lightweight methodology to test the robustness of representations learned by pre-trained models under shifts in data domain and quality across different types of tasks. It entails freezing pre-trained model parameters, only using simple task-specific trainable heads. The goal is to be inclusive of all researchers, and encourage efficient use of computational resources. We also show that the task diversity of SUPERB-SG coupled with limited task supervision is an effective recipe for evaluating the generalizability of model representation.