mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Persona-Guided LLM Agents for Task-Oriented Dialogue

arXiv 2608.18085 ↗First posted 4 Jun 2026cs.CLcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate

Abstract (arXiv)

Prior work has shown that large language models (LLMs) can express diverse personality traits in open-ended text generation. However, it remains unclear whether they can do so in a goal-directed dialogue without compromising task completion, and whether adapting to the user's personality improves the interaction quality. We study these questions in task-oriented dialogue (TOD), where a system helps a user accomplish a goal via multi-turn interaction. We build a training-free framework that simulates a TOD interaction between two LLMs: a user agent that exhibits a target personality and a system agent that adapts to the user while completing the task. To isolate the effect of adaptation, we vary how much the system knows about the user's personality across three conditions. In Neutral, the system receives no personality information. In Try, it infers the personality from dialogue cues. In Oracle, it is given the personality explicitly. We evaluate GPT-4o, Qwen3-Next-80B, and Gemini 2.0 Flash on Hotel and Restaurant dialogues from the Schema-Guided Dialogue (SGD) dataset, across the Big Five traits and their opposite poles. We find that the user agent can express personality while the system maintains strong task performance, although some traits are realized far less reliably than others. Adapting to the user's personality improves constraint satisfaction, inform rate, and user satisfaction, but lowers truthfulness, revealing a trade-off between personalization and task-grounding. Oracle's gains grow when the target trait is strongly expressed, whereas Try's gains are largely insensitive to realization strength. Overall, cue-based adaptation in Try best resolves this trade-off and offers a more reliable route to personality-aware TOD without fine-tuning.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2026.

Builds on

8 of 26 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior7 Apr

Other references · 7

  1. 2019Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Datasetcited by 434
  2. 2023PersonaLLM: Investigating the Ability of Large Language Models to Express Personality Traitscited by 234
  3. 2024Two Tales of Persona in LLMs: A Survey of Role-Playing and Personalizationcited by 208
  4. 2020MultiWOZ 2.2 : A Dialogue Dataset with Additional Annotation Corrections and State Tracking Baselinescited by 204
  5. 2023Personality Traits in Large Language Modelscited by 169
  6. 2020MultiWOZ 2.3: A multi-domain task-oriented dialogue dataset enhanced with annotation corrections and co-reference annotationcited by 51
  7. 2025Evaluating and Enhancing Out-of-Domain Generalization of Task-Oriented Dialog Systems for Task Completion without Turn-level Dialog Annotationscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024LLM Agents in Interaction: Measuring Personality Consistency and Linguistic Alignment in Interacting Populations of Large Language Models
  2. 2026Personality, Role, and Expressive Style in Large Language Models: An Interactionist Analysis
  3. 2026Structured Personality Control and Adaptation for LLM Agents
  4. 2025Can LLM Agents Maintain a Persona in Discourse?
  5. 2026Behavior-Adaptive Conversational Agents: Toward a Fluid Personality Framework
  6. 2024Large Language Models as User-Agents for Evaluating Task-Oriented-Dialogue Systems
  7. 2026Do Personality-Tuned LLMs Make Better Social Agents?
  8. 2025Vibe Check: Understanding the Effects of LLM-Based Conversational Agents' Personality and Alignment on User Perceptions in Goal-Oriented Tasks