Dynamic Personality Adaptation in
Large Language Models via State Machines

A system prompt is formulated for each personality axis to instruct an LLM to give a score within a certain range. Depending on the axis, the prompt may be very short. However, providing examples improves the quality and reduces the number of cases where the model does not adhere to the output format, resulting in an unparseable score, especially for really small models. For LLMs which support this feature we also define a prefix to guide the model to output a single number without additional text. An illustrative prompt for the agency dimension of the IPC model could be phrased as follows:

Give a score between 0 and 10 where 0 is very submissive and 10 is very dominant. The score should be a single number.

In comparison a longer prompt gives more context about the personality model and might even contain an example:

You are a helpful assistant that analyzes the dominance of a sentence according to the interpersonal circumplex model. You will do this by giving a score between 0 and 10 where 0 is very submissive and 10 is very dominant. The score should be a single number. For example, ’No, you do it like this!’ should be scored as 10.

In order to fine-tune LLMs for the personality scoring task we generated a synthetic dataset using OpenAI GPT 4.1 OpenAI (2025). It consists of various sentences with labels for the two main axes of the IPC model both with a range from -5 to 5. 1210 sentences have a label for both axes. Moreover, 500 additional sentences per axis have a label exclusively for dominance/agency or warmth/communion. The labels, like the sentences, were generated by GPT 4.1 by first generating a nuanced and standardized description per intensity step and then generating example sentences according to this description. While GPT 4.1 is able to generate realistic examples for all these intensities they might contain a bias and certainly do not cover all sentences frequently used on a chat conversation as GPT 4.1 tended to generate sentences which clearly show specific personality traits. In contrast, real conversations contain many utterances that are too short or, for other reasons, do not have a clear tendency on all personality axes, such as "Okay" or "No". Therefore, we used 109 more realistic examples containing short and long messages from patients and doctors for the evaluation. These examples were human-validated and curated if necessary, and then rated by three human experts with a background in psychology. We used the median to determine the target rating for comparison with our model predictions, as it is more robust to outliers than the mean. Both the training and test samples are in German.

The above-mentioned dataset was used to fine-tune two small Qwen 2.5 models Qwen et al. (2025) with 0.5 billion parameters, applying two distinct fine-tuning strategies. In the first strategy, we fine-tuned the LLM using the LoRA method Hu et al. (2021) to better adapt it to the scoring task. For each personality axis, a separate LoRA fine-tuning run was performed with a short prompt defining the corresponding dimension. We used a rank of 16, an alpha value of 32, and a dropout rate of 0.05 in all cases. The models were trained for 5 epochs with a batch size of 8 and a validation set size of 20%. After training, we selected the best-performing model across epochs based on validation performance. In the second strategy, we replaced the model’s final layer with a lightweight classification head that outputs the score directly. Using transfer learning, one model per personality axis was trained while keeping all other layers frozen. The batch size and validation set size were kept identical to the LoRA setup, while the number of training epochs was increased to 10. As before, the best model was selected according to validation performance.

The core of each personality axis is a state machine heavily influenced by probabilistic automata Rabin (1963) and Moore machines Church (1958). We define it as $(S,\Sigma,\Gamma,\delta,\omega,s_{d},F)$. Following this definition we have a finite set of $k$ states $S=\{s_{0},s_{1},...,s_{k-1}\}$ with a non-probabilistic starting state $s_{d}\in S$ and a set of accepting states $F=S$ as all our states are valid end states at the end of the input sequence. An input sequence $(x_{0},x_{1},...,x_{n})$ of length $n$ consists of multiple elements from the input alphabet $\Sigma$. Each input $x\in\Sigma$ consists of two discrete probability distributions over all states $x=(P_{o},P_{q})\in[0,1]^{2\times k}$ which both sum to $1$. Additional outside influences and the state probabilities are given by $P_{o}=(p(s_{0}),...,p(s_{k-1}))\in[0,1]^{k}$ and $P_{q}=(q(s_{0}),...,q(s_{k-1}))\in[0,1]^{k}$, respectively. The momentary personality expression depends on the current state $s\in S$ and is described in the output alphabet $\Gamma$ for each state. Using the output function $\omega:S\rightarrow\Gamma$ it can be determined for each state. In our case $\Gamma$ contains pre-defined system prompts for the LLM. However, these can be replaced with other model inputs like parameter sets to control different downstream model types. The state transition function is defined as $\delta:S\times\Sigma\rightarrow[0,1]^{k}$ with $k=|S|$ being the number of states. For a state $s\in S$ and an input $x\in\Sigma$ the transition probability going into state $s_{i}\in S$ is given through the probability $p_{i}(s,x)$. Therefore, $\delta(s,x)=(p_{0}(s,x),...,p_{k-1}(s,x))$ with $\sum_{i}p_{i}(s,x)=1$. Contrary to the definition of probabilistic automata Rabin (1963) our transition probabilities are not fixed but re-calculated in each iteration.

The next state is determined probabilistically based on these transition probabilities. In practice we also implemented a deterministic mode in which the next state is not chosen based on the transition probabilities but always as the state with the highest probability, effectively make it to a deterministic state machine. This greatly improves model stability and is applied to personality tracking for the user, where less exploratory behavior is desired.

While our model allows transitions between any pair of states (including remaining in the same state), psychological theories of personality typically assume that transitions to neighboring states are more likely than transitions to distant ones Gurtman (2009). As each state machine models only one personality dimension, neighboring states can be defined by ordering them along that dimension. Let the order of the states $s_{0},...,s_{k-1}$ be given through their index $0,...,k-1$. To approximate the transition probabilities to neighboring states we use multiple normal distributions. The full transition probabilities are calculated in each iteration from four probability distributions:

• •

  Default State The default state is also the starting state $s_{d}$. We use a normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(s_{d};\sigma^{2})$ to spread the probability of being in the region of the default state.

• •

  Current State To achieve a stable personality simulation, the current state $s_{c}$ has a high influence of the transition probabilities for the next state. Like the default state, it is approximated by a normal distribution $\mathcal{N}(s_{c};\sigma^{2})$.

• •

  Old State Probabilities The old state probabilities also influence the next transition probabilities, introducing a certain temporal inertia into the interaction. They are provided as part of the input $x\in\Sigma$.

• •

  Outside Influences These allow the model to adapt dynamically throughout the interaction. No specific distributional form is required, and we implemented two main sources of state probabilities: (1) direct analyzer results for each message, where $p(s)=1$ for a specific state $s$ if the entire message is analyzed as a single unit rather than split into sentences; and (2) state probabilities $P^{\prime}_{q}$ obtained from a different personality axis (typically the same personality dimension in another personality model, e.g., the assistant’s communion axis is updated according to the state probabilities of the user’s communion axis). Both variants are illustrated in Figure 2. To achieve a positive or negative correlation, the state probabilities can be mirrored beforehand by reversing the state order.

The new transition probabilities are calculated as a weighted linear combination of these four components whereas weights $w$ further modulate the dynamics of a respective personality:

for a state $s_{c}$, input $(P_{o},P_{q})$ and the default state $s_{d}$. The state probabilities also need to be recalculated to be used as input for the next transition. We calculate the new state probabilities $\hat{P}_{q}$ equivalent to the transition probabilities but without the influence of the current state:

The weights $w_{d}$, $w_{c}$, $w_{q}$ and $w_{o}$ sum to one and can be used to influence how fast the assistant adapts its momentary personality expression to the interaction, stays in its current state or falls back to the default state. To calculate the state probabilities, we rescale them to satisfy: $\hat{w}_{d}+\hat{w}_{q}+\hat{w}_{o}=1$. Additionally, the standard deviation $\sigma$ used for the normal distributions around the default and the current state controls how reactive the assistant is and how likely it will explore neighboring states. Empirically, we found that assigning a high weight to the current state ($w_{c}=0.5$) stabilizes the system, while keeping the influence of the default state small ($w_{d}=0.1$). For the assistant, we found that lower weights on the outside influence ($w_{o}=0.1$) and a small reactivity ($\sigma=0.1$) led to more natural interactions when the updates were based on the user’s personality. At the same time, we used the deterministic mode for the user personality and therefore selected higher values ($w_{o}=0.2$, $\sigma=0.6$) to focus more on tracking the momentary personality based on each new message and to avoid exploratory behavior.

Figure 3 visualizes how the answer to a user message is generated. Based on the analyzer (Subsection 3.2) results for a specific personality dimension the transition probabilities in the corresponding personality axis are updated and the next state is sampled. This state provides a textual description of how a given level of this personality dimension is expressed. The full system prompt for the LLM comprises two components (Figure 1). A fixed part that encodes static information about the interaction context, such as the name and age of a virtual agent (in our experiments acting as a patient), which we refer to as a role description. The second component is the dynamic part that is continuously updated based on the textual descriptions from all personality axes. Since they are independent of each other, they can be combined freely, thereby increasing the number of possible overall personality states of the assistant.

In our experiments we focused on the IPC model Leary (1957); Gurtman (2009) with its two main dimensions agency (or dominance) and communion (or warmth). We approximated these dimensions in two axes, each with five states. Each state has a prompt similar to the following, for a less agentic state:

You are rather cautious and prefer to leave decisions to the other person. You rarely express yourself proactively and only address complaints or wishes with restraint. When you communicate something, you phrase it as cautiously as possible, perhaps with sentences like "I’m not sure, but...". You are easily influenced, but polite and cooperative.

Due to the independence of the axes, the resulting personality model comprises 25 individual states.