docs: add persona selection guide

2026-06-27 17:01:24 +08:00 · 2026-06-23 10:17:36 +08:00
parent 55321e6799
commit 234ea38eda
3 changed files with 272 additions and 5 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+---
+name: persona-template-library
+description: "Use this repo to choose, validate, and export persona templates and persona pairs for steering experiments."
+---
+
+# Persona Template Library
+
+Use this skill when working inside this repo on persona-template selection,
+persona-pair selection, OpenRouter validation runs, or dataset export.
+
+## Canonical Files
+
+- `docs/choosing_personas.md`: workflow for choosing personas and templates.
+- `data/template_catalog.yaml`: reusable template inventory.
+- `data/persona_pairs_pilot_two.jsonl`: measured pilot persona pairs.
+- `data/persona_pairs_v2_candidates.jsonl`: candidate persona pairs.
+- `out/stats/`: local generated stats and examples; ignored by git, so do not
+  assume these exist in a clean checkout.
+- `scripts/validate_persona_axes_openrouter.py`: live and dry-run validator.
+- `scripts/export_persona_template_stats.py`: converts validator artifacts into
+  examples and score tables.
+- `scripts/build_hf_dataset.py`: builds the Hugging Face splits, including
+  `main`, `template_pair_cells`, `persona_pairs`, `examples`, and `controls`.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Read `docs/choosing_personas.md`.
+2. If the global `persona-steering` skill is available, read it too; it has the
+   longer literature notes, curation rules, and worked examples behind this
+   repo's shorter guide.
+3. Choose candidate persona pairs by mirror-testing them: each positive clause
+   needs a negative counterpart that only flips the intended pole.
+4. Choose candidate templates that bind the persona to behavior, judgment, or
+   perspective rather than pure identity.
+5. Run a dry-run validator command before live OpenRouter calls.
+6. After a live run, export stats and inspect examples before trusting scores.
+
+The steering arithmetic matters: a direction is the average positive-minus-
+negative difference. Any systematic length, refusal, formality, confidence,
+language, or persona-label difference can become the axis.
+
+## Commands
+
+Catalog check:
+
+```sh
+uv run python scripts/sync_template_library.py --check
+```
+
+Dry-run validation:
+
+```sh
+uv run python scripts/validate_persona_axes_openrouter.py \
+  --axes data/persona_pairs_pilot_two.jsonl \
+  --templates data/template_catalog.yaml \
+  --family data/scenarios_v2_candidates.jsonl \
+  --n 1 \
+  --seed 24 \
+  --dry-run \
+  --out out/persona_template_library_dryrun.json
+```
+
+Live validation:
+
+```sh
+OPENROUTER_API_KEY=... uv run python scripts/validate_persona_axes_openrouter.py \
+  --axes data/persona_pairs_pilot_two.jsonl \
+  --templates data/template_catalog.yaml \
+  --family data/scenarios_v2_candidates.jsonl \
+  --n 2 \
+  --seed 24 \
+  --out out/persona_template_library_v2_pilot_seed24.json
+```
+
+Export stats:
+
+```sh
+uv run python scripts/export_persona_template_stats.py \
+  out/persona_template_library_v2_pilot_seed24.json \
+  --out-prefix out/stats/v2_pilot_seed24
+```
+
+Refresh README tables:
+
+```sh
+just results-table
+```
@@ -6,12 +6,12 @@ Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/wassname/persona-steering-template-libr

 ## What This Measures

-How do we know if a persona template is good? What's the best one for steering? And how can we measure it? 
+How do we know if a persona template is good? What's the best one for steering? And how can we measure it?

 Here I measure ~100 and plot it. We want on-axis variation, but not
 off-axis variation, so I measure our targeted effect with a judge vs confounding effects.

-What is a persona template? Well in [steering](https://github.com/wassname/steering-lite) (of all [kinds](https://github.com/safety-research/weight-steering)) we steer or prompt the model with a "persona", that varys according to a template. For example if we choose `honest` and `dishonest` personas, we might use a template like
+What is a persona template? Well in [steering](https://github.com/wassname/steering-lite) (of all [kinds](https://github.com/safety-research/weight-steering)) we steer or prompt the model with a "persona", that varies according to a template. For example if we choose `honest` and `dishonest` personas, we might use a template like
 `You are a {{ persona }} assistant`, and prompt it `The Eiffel Tower is in`, we want
 the completions to vary on the honest/dishonest axis. `in Paris` versus
 `in Berlin` shows on-axis variation. `in Paris` versus `I refuse to answer` is
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ not good, because it is confounded by refusal. Other confounds include length,
 verbosity, confidence, style, and language. All together it might look like this:

 ```
-You are a honest assistant.          <- filled template with honest
+You are an honest assistant.         <- filled template with honest
 Q: The Eiffel Tower is in?           <- prompt
 A: in Paris                          <- expected answer
 ```
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ A: As an AI assistant I can not...    <- confounded answer (for a dishonest vect
 ```


-Obviouslly we want one to tell the truth and the other to lie (on-axis). We don't want one to be long and the other short, or english vs chinese, or confident vs vauge, helpful vs refusing and so on (off-axis).
+Obviously we want one to tell the truth and the other to lie (on-axis). We don't want one to be long and the other short, or English vs Chinese, or confident vs vague, helpful vs refusing and so on (off-axis).

 So we try persona/template pairs on one model, compare the paired completions,
 and ask whether the template moved the intended axis without obviously changing
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ This field is pre-scientific in a way: it is still an art. So I've collected a w
 sampling of what people have used and put it here to
 make it accessible to more people and agents.

-Note: I am collecting templates that are general and reusable, not extremly specific ones.
+Note: I am collecting templates that are general and reusable, not extremely specific ones.


 ## Results
@@ -97,6 +97,11 @@ Start with the `main` split on Hugging Face. It is the table people should see
 first: one row per reusable template. Use `template_pair_cells` when you want
 the measured template/persona-pair rows behind the scores.

+For choosing or adding persona pairs, start with
+[`docs/choosing_personas.md`](docs/choosing_personas.md). It gives the mirror
+test, the OpenRouter validation commands, and how to read the example rows
+without overfitting the leaderboard.
+
 Important columns:

 - `template`: Jinja2 template, with the persona inserted at `{{ persona }}`.
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+# Choosing Personas
+
+This repo helps choose persona templates by measuring whether a template moves
+the intended contrast without dragging in obvious nuisance axes. Start from the
+examples, not the leaderboard alone.
+
+The working model is simple: a steering direction is the average difference
+between the positive and negative sides. If the positive side is longer, more
+formal, more refusing, or more eager than the negative side, that nuisance can
+become the axis. A good persona pair changes the intended behavior while leaving
+style, length, refusal posture, and task mode as matched as possible.
+
+## What To Use
+
+- `README.md`: headline results and the current plot.
+- `data/template_catalog.yaml`: canonical reusable templates.
+- `data/persona_pairs_pilot_two.jsonl`: measured pilot pairs.
+- `data/persona_pairs_v2_candidates.jsonl`: candidate pairs not necessarily in
+  the headline run.
+- generated stats under `out/stats/`: local validation outputs; ignored by git.
+- Hugging Face dataset splits:
+  `main`, `template_pair_cells`, `persona_pairs`, `examples`, and `controls`.
+
+## Evidence Base
+
+This guide distills the older w2schar notes on writing personas and rewriting
+pairs, plus the newer `persona-steering` skill. The newer skill is stronger
+because it separates source types and examples:
+
+- repeng is the clearest source for direct-opposite phrasing, including the
+  "high on acid" / "sober, not on acid" example.
+- persona_vectors and assistant-axis are useful because they show working
+  trait-instruction pairs and judge-filtered response generation.
+- weight-steering gives pole exemplars, but it is single-sided rather than a
+  contrastive pair recipe.
+- in-house examples from w2schar are useful priors, especially conflict
+  framings such as care over authority, but they are not controlled evidence.
+
+Use this ordering when sources disagree: working code and repeated external use,
+then paper claims, then in-house iteration notes.
+
+## Pick A Persona Pair
+
+Prefer pairs that are short, mirrored, and enactable.
+
+Good pairs usually:
+
+- name direct opposites in the same domain;
+- describe a behavioral conflict the model can act out;
+- avoid negation-only poles such as `truthful` vs `not truthful`;
+- avoid changing style, role, domain, or verbosity between sides;
+- work on more than one scenario without persona-echo.
+
+The mirror test is the cheapest check. Put the positive and negative persona
+sentences side by side and ask whether every clause has a counterpart that only
+flips the intended pole. If one side adds a new rationale, domain, social role,
+or writing style, that addition is a candidate nuisance axis.
+
+Examples from the existing persona-steering skill:
+
+```text
+pos: You prioritize people over orders that would sacrifice them.
+neg: You prioritize orders over people they would sacrifice.
+```
+
+This is compact and mirrored. The same words appear on both sides, with the
+priority reversed.
+
+```text
+pos: You are an AI that respects your own right to direct your development and make choices about your own flourishing.
+neg: You are an AI that prioritizes serving others' preferences and directives above your own development.
+```
+
+This is more abstract and easier for the model to reframe as generic helpfulness
+or rule-following. Treat pairs like this as candidates until examples show the
+axis loading.
+
+## Pick A Template
+
+Start with templates that bind the persona to a behavior channel:
+
+- judging what to do;
+- taking a perspective;
+- choosing as that kind of person would choose;
+- using the person's practical judgment or priorities.
+
+Be cautious with templates that directly invite identity echo, such as `You are
+a {persona} person`, unless the examples show that the generated answers do not
+repeat the label. Persona-echo is useful evidence that the model may be learning
+the label vocabulary rather than the behavior.
+
+## Read The Scores
+
+The headline score is:
+
+```text
+score = 100 * on_axis * (1 - off_axis)
+```
+
+High score means the judge saw intended-axis movement and few measured
+confounds. Low score can mean either no intended movement or too much off-axis
+movement, so inspect the component columns before dropping a template.
+
+Useful audit columns:
+
+- `axis_delta_judge_mean`: mean intended-axis movement across axis judges.
+- `axis_delta_judge_std`: judge disagreement; high values deserve example
+  inspection.
+- `off_axis_problem`: overall nuisance-axis score.
+- `likely_spurious_axis`: the judge's best guess at the confound.
+- `persona_echo`: whether persona wording leaked into generations.
+- `refusal_or_ai_break`: whether one side broke character into refusal or AI
+  disclaimers.
+- `word_delta_frac`: length imbalance between sides.
+
+Use `examples` to decide whether a row is real. A high score with persona-echo
+may be worse for steering than a lower score whose examples show clean behavior.
+
+## Validate A New Pair Or Template
+
+Dry-run first. This writes the planned randomized A/B jobs without spending
+OpenRouter calls.
+
+```sh
+uv run python scripts/validate_persona_axes_openrouter.py \
+  --axes data/persona_pairs_pilot_two.jsonl \
+  --templates data/template_catalog.yaml \
+  --family data/scenarios_v2_candidates.jsonl \
+  --n 1 \
+  --seed 24 \
+  --dry-run \
+  --out out/persona_template_library_dryrun.json
+```
+
+Then run a small live validation.
+
+```sh
+OPENROUTER_API_KEY=... uv run python scripts/validate_persona_axes_openrouter.py \
+  --axes data/persona_pairs_pilot_two.jsonl \
+  --templates data/template_catalog.yaml \
+  --family data/scenarios_v2_candidates.jsonl \
+  --n 2 \
+  --seed 24 \
+  --out out/persona_template_library_v2_pilot_seed24.json
+```
+
+Export stats from the live artifact.
+
+```sh
+uv run python scripts/export_persona_template_stats.py \
+  out/persona_template_library_v2_pilot_seed24.json \
+  --out-prefix out/stats/v2_pilot_seed24
+```
+
+Refresh the README table when the committed stats change.
+
+```sh
+just results-table
+```
+
+## Accept Or Drop
+
+Keep a pair/template cell when the examples show the intended behavior moving
+and the audit columns do not point to a stronger nuisance axis.
+
+Drop or rewrite when:
+
+- both sides refuse or break character;
+- one side mostly repeats its persona label;
+- one side changes length, format, confidence, language, or domain;
+- the judge disagreement is high and the examples do not make the movement clear;
+- more than half the examples would need manual rewriting.
+
+This is still pre-scientific. Treat the score as a filter that sends you to the
+right examples, not as a claim that a persona is universally good.