Toward Robust Personalized Alignment for LLMs: Mitigating Persona Drift in Multi-Turn Dialogue
Persona drift remains a central challenge for personalized language models, as user profiles evolve over long interactions rather than remain permanently fixed. Models must therefore revise persistent persona states when preferences genuinely change, while avoiding updates driven by transient, ambiguous, or unresolved observations. We propose CORE, which separates turn-local evidence from persistent persona-state revision and selectively updates grounded user preferences through uncertainty-aware belief revision. We also introduce PERSIST, a held-out post-anchor benchmark for persona-state robustness under sequential interaction stress, covering ambiguity, conflict, and controlled social influence. Across ALOE, PersonaChat, and PERSIST, CORE improves personalized alignment and robustness, with complementary gains in normalized closed-slot state fidelity. Human evaluation and mechanistic controls further support explicit update control beyond stronger generation or persistent memory alone.
Introduction. As language models evolve into long-term assistants, users increasingly expect them to preserve stable personal preferences across interactions (Zhang et al., 2018; Salemi et al., 2024; Li et al., 2025). Yet long-horizon personalization is difficult because user evidence is often partial, transient, or conflicting (Peng et al., 2025; Okite et al., 2025). A turn may locally suggest a preference without providing sufficient support to revise the persistent user state. When such observations are internalized too readily, previously grounded preferences can be displaced, contributing to persona drift. Figure 1 illustrates how turn-local evidence can incorrectly overwrite a previously grounded persona state. Existing personalization methods only partially address this problem. Prompting and retrieval methods improve access to profiles or historical context, while SFT and preference optimization improve personalized responses (Richardson et al., 2023; Li et al., 2025; Ouyang et al., 2022; Rafailov et al., 2023).
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How can AI chatbots provide therapeutic benefit without causing harm? What mechanisms preserve shared understanding in evolving conversations? Does preference optimization systematically degrade conversational grounding in language models? Does abstract user knowledge outperform concrete interaction history in personalization?- How much of a user model must be sent per request for effective personalization?
- Why does abstract preference knowledge outperform specific interaction recall in personalization?
- Does user profile data drive personalization more than conversation history?
- How do abstract preference summaries compare to detailed user profiles for personalization?
- Why does personalization depend more on user history than query semantics?
- How do granularity levels of personalization handle unknown concept ontologies?
- How does persona consistency affect coherence in simulated dialogue?
- Do synthetic personas maintain consistency across multiple conversations?
- What are the three distinct types of persona drift in dialogue systems?
- What training objectives would actually improve persona consistency at scale?
- Can offline RL scale persona consistency across multi-turn conversations?
- How can training methods enforce persona consistency without supervised learning penalizing it?
- Can persona consistency coexist with relevant dialogue in personalized conversation?
- How does distractor persona selection affect consistency enforcement in dialogue?
- Why is persona consistency a pragmatic property rather than semantic?
- How does tree-structured persona maintenance prevent character drift in long conversations?
- Does persona assignment alone produce repetitive dialogue without situational grounding?