Jailbreak attacks aim to exploit large language models (LLMs) by inducing them to generate harmful content, thereby revealing their vulnerabilities. Understanding and addressing these attacks is crucial for advancing the field of LLM safety. Previous jailbreak approaches have mainly focused on direct manipulations of harmful intent, with limited attention to the impact of persona prompts. In this study, we systematically explore the efficacy of persona prompts in compromising LLM defenses. We propose a genetic algorithm-based method that automatically crafts persona prompts to bypass LLM's safety mechanisms. Our experiments reveal that: (1) our evolved persona prompts reduce refusal rates by 50-70% across multiple LLMs, and (2) these prompts demonstrate synergistic effects when combined with existing attack methods, increasing success rates by 10-20%. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/CjangCjengh/Generic_Persona.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for simulating human perspectives via persona prompting is gaining traction in computational social science. However, well-curated, empirically grounded persona collections remain scarce, limiting the accuracy and representativeness of such simulations. Here we introduce the German General Personas (GGP) collection, a comprehensive and representative persona prompt collection built from the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS). The GGP and its persona prompts are designed to be easily plugged into prompts for all types of LLMs and tasks, steering models to generate responses aligned with the underlying German population. We evaluate GGP by prompting various LLMs to simulate survey response distributions across diverse topics, demonstrating that GGP-guided LLMs outperform state-of-the-art classifiers, particularly under data scarcity. Furthermore, we analyze how the representativity and attribute selection within persona prompts affect alignment with population responses. Our findings suggest that GGP provides a potentially valuable resource for research on LLM-based social simulations that enables more systematic explorations of population-aligned persona prompting in NLP and social science research.

Persona prompting is increasingly used in large language models (LLMs) to simulate views of various sociodemographic groups. However, how a persona prompt is formulated can significantly affect outcomes, raising concerns about the fidelity of such simulations. Using five open-source LLMs, we systematically examine how different persona prompt strategies, specifically role adoption formats and demographic priming strategies, influence LLM simulations across 15 intersectional demographic groups in both open- and closed-ended tasks. Our findings show that LLMs struggle to simulate marginalized groups but that the choice of demographic priming and role adoption strategy significantly impacts their portrayal. Specifically, we find that prompting in an interview-style format and name-based priming can help reduce stereotyping and improve alignment. Surprisingly, smaller models like OLMo-2-7B outperform larger ones such as Llama-3.3-70B. Our findings offer actionable guidance for designing sociodemographic persona prompts in LLM-based simulation studies.

Modern language models are trained on large amounts of data. These data inevitably include controversial and stereotypical content, which contains all sorts of biases related to gender, origin, age, etc. As a result, the models express biased points of view or produce different results based on the assigned personality or the personality of the user. In this paper, we investigate various proxy measures of bias in large language models (LLMs). We find that evaluating models with pre-prompted personae on a multi-subject benchmark (MMLU) leads to negligible and mostly random differences in scores. However, if we reformulate the task and ask a model to grade the user's answer, this shows more significant signs of bias. Finally, if we ask the model for salary negotiation advice, we see pronounced bias in the answers. With the recent trend for LLM assistant memory and personalization, these problems open up from a different angle: modern LLM users do not need to pre-prompt the description of their persona since the model already knows their socio-demographics.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support creative tasks such as research idea generation. While recent work has shown that structured dialogues between LLMs can improve the novelty and feasibility of generated ideas, the optimal design of such interactions remains unclear. In this study, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of multi-agent LLM dialogues for scientific ideation. We compare different configurations of agent roles, number of agents, and dialogue depth to understand how these factors influence the novelty and feasibility of generated ideas. Our experimental setup includes settings where one agent generates ideas and another critiques them, enabling iterative improvement. Our results show that enlarging the agent cohort, deepening the interaction depth, and broadening agent persona heterogeneity each enrich the diversity of generated ideas. Moreover, specifically increasing critic-side diversity within the ideation-critique-revision loop further boosts the feasibility of the final proposals. Our findings offer practical guidelines for building effective multi-agent LLM systems for scientific ideation. Our code is available at https://github.com/g6000/MultiAgent-Research-Ideator.

Large language models (LLMs) have been prominent in various tasks, including text generation and summarisation. The applicability of LLMs to the generation of product reviews is gaining momentum, paving the way for the generation of movie reviews. In this study, we propose a framework that generates movie reviews using three LLMs (GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, and Gemini-2.0), and evaluate their performance by comparing the generated outputs with IMDb user reviews. We use movie subtitles and screenplays as input to the LLMs and investigate how they affect the quality of reviews generated. We review the LLM-based movie reviews in terms of vocabulary, sentiment polarity, similarity, and thematic consistency in comparison to IMDB user reviews. The results demonstrate that LLMs are capable of generating syntactically fluent and structurally complete movie reviews. Nevertheless, there is still a noticeable gap in emotional richness and stylistic coherence between LLM-generated and IMDb reviews, suggesting that further refinement is needed to improve the overall quality of movie review generation. We provided a survey-based analysis where participants were told to distinguish between LLM and IMDb user reviews. The results show that LLM-generated reviews are difficult to distinguish from IMDB user reviews. We found that DeepSeek-V3 produced the most balanced reviews, closely matching IMDb reviews. GPT-4o overemphasised positive emotions, while Gemini-2.0 captured negative emotions better but showed excessive emotional intensity.