ConvoDrift：用于建模风格语气演变的多轮对话数据集

# ConvoDrift: A Multi-Turn Conversational Dataset for Modeling Stylistic Tone Evolution
Source: [https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873)
Vihindi KotalawalaPamoda DilrangaAffiliation:Independant Researcher, Sri LankaEmail:[pamoda9@gmail\.com](mailto:)Gayani ThoradeniyaAffiliation:National Health and Medical Research Council, AustraliaEmail:[gayani\.thoradeniya@nhmrc\.gov\.au](mailto:)Prasan YapaAffiliation:Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine \(LCSB\), University of LuxembourgEmail:[prasan\.yapa@uni\.lu](mailto:)

###### Abstract

The evolution of linguistic style in conversations is an underexplored issue in NLP\. Most style\-control datasets focus on sentences or assume a static style throughout, missing the dynamic shifts that occur as user preferences change during interactions\. We introduceConvoDrift, a dataset designed to model progressive stylistic conversational tone drift under fixed semantic intent\. It is built on 15,727 shared multi\-turn conversational structures for adaptation and persona\-conditioned alignment methods\. It consists of six prompt–response pairs per conversation, each with the annotation of style drift and style direction labels\. These pairs cover a range of communication genres\. We further derive a complementary pairwise dataset by pairing semantically equivalent but stylistically distinct responses and annotating persona\-conditioned preferences using five distinct style communication personas, enabling the controlled study of personalisation and pluralistic alignment in language tone\. In addition to dataset construction, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation involving human validation, LLM\-as\-judge assessment, and automatic lexical and semantic evaluations\. Across seven Likert criteria annotated by three human annotators, the average*Krippendorff’sα\\alpha*is 0\.88, and our lexical and semantic analyses show that drift events induce lexical changes while preserving semantic similarity\.

Keywords:Pluralistic alignment, Preference learning, Conversational tone drift

## 1Introduction

Conversational interactions involving language models are inherently dynamic: users often adjust linguistic style and tone across multiple turns as goals, preferences, and stylistic expectations evolve\. However, existing Natural Language Processing \(NLP\) datasets and benchmarks provide limited support for modelling this kind of progressive, turn\-by\-turn stylistic change\. In particular, most style\-control and style\-transfer benchmarks operate at the sentence level[Rao and Tetreault \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib1)and explicitly ignore conversational context, making them ill\-suited for studying stylistic evolution over multi\-turn dialogue\.[Roy et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib8)\. This highlights the lack of datasets that capture how tone progressively drifts during a conversation while preserving the context and maintaining the original semantic intent\.

We introduceConvoDrift111Dataset is available at[Github](https://github.com/Vihindi/_CONVODRIFT_/tree/main)and[![[Uncaptioned image]](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/hf-logo.png)HuggingFace](https://huggingface.co/collections/Vihindi-K/convodrift)\., a flexible dataset built around a shared conversational benchmark\. This corpus facilitates the study of progressive stylistic tone drift in multi\-turn dialogue and the derivation of style and tone\-relevant preference data suitable for personalised alignment via Reinforcement Learning From Human Feedback \(RLHF\), addressing existing limitations in the field\. By explicitly separating semantic content from stylistic modification,ConvoDriftenables controlled analysis of tone variation across turns without confounding content changes, a property that is difficult to achieve with existing dialogue corpora[Cheng et al\. \(2020\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib22)\. The same conversational trajectories can be reused for multiple purposes, including modelling stylistic dynamics or serving as preference supervision, and can be evaluated under different preference profiles through persona\-conditioned tone drift\. This design naturally supports pluralistic alignment, in which multiple stylistic preferences are treated as valid rather than collapsed into a single reward signal, addressing concerns highlighted in recent alignment research[Poddar et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib19)\. To further demonstrate the practical utility of the dataset, we conducted a downstream preference modelling task using Variational Preference Learning \(VPL\)[Poddar et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib19)\. The results show thatConvoDriftcan support persona\-conditioned preference learning and is suitable for training preference models that capture diverse stylistic preferences\.

In summary,ConvoDriftcontributes: \(1\) Explicit supervision for progressive tone drift in multi\-turn dialogue; \(2\) A clear separation between semantic content and stylistic modification; \(3\) Support for studying persona\-conditioned and pluralistic stylistic preferences within a unified conversational setting\.

## 2Related Work

### 2\.1Stylistic Tone Variation and Drift in Text

Research on stylistic control in text has historically focused on style transfer, in which a single input sentence is rewritten to exhibit a target stylistic attribute while preserving its semantic content\. Foundational datasets such as the Grammarly Yahoo Answers Formality Corpus \(GYAFC\)[Rao and Tetreault \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib1)enable supervised informal–formal rewriting and have become standard benchmarks for formality transfer\. The existing research has explored stylistic attributes, including politeness[Danescu\-Niculescu\-Mizil et al\. \(2013\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib2);[Niu and Bansal \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib3), sentiment[Fu et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib4), professionalism[Ficler and Goldberg \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib5), and controlled generation[Hu et al\. \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib7)without parallel data[Shen et al\. \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib6)\. Despite covering a range of stylistic attributes, these approaches predominantly operate at the sentence level, framing stylistic control as a single\-turn rewriting task applied to isolated utterances\. In these formulations, stylistic transformation is treated as a context\-independent operation, where each input is processed without access to conversational history or discourse structure[Ficler and Goldberg \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib5);[Hu et al\. \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib7)\. As a result, such methods do not capture stylistic dynamics across a conversation, where tone may evolve gradually in response to prior turns or communicative goals\.

More recent work has begun to incorporate dialogue context into stylistic modelling\.[Roy et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib8)propose a few\-shot conversational style transfer framework that rewrites entire dialogues conditioned on exemplar conversations\. Nevertheless, this line of work focuses on global style transformation rather than planned, turn\-by\-turn stylistic drift, leaving fine\-grained conversational tone evolution underexplored\.

Although conversational style transfer incorporates dialogue context, it still provides limited supervision for*when*stylistic changes occur and*how*tone evolves progressively across turns\. Modelling such tone evolution also introduces a personalisation dimension, as different users may exhibit and prefer different stylistic behaviours throughout an interaction\. This observation naturally connects stylistic drift modelling to research on personalised and persona\-conditioned dialogue systems, which explicitly account for user\-specific conversational behaviours\.

This connection between stylistic variation and user\-specific behaviour motivates consideration of persona\-based dialogue research\. While such research captures user identity and preferences at the level of content and conversational consistency it offers limited mechanisms for modelling how stylistic preferences \(e\.g\., tone and writing style\) are learned, compared, or optimised during training, despite their central role in personalisation[Zhang et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib10)\. Addressing this limitation requires preference\-based learning frameworks that explicitly model human judgements, motivating the growing role of preference data and RLHF\.

### 2\.2Personalised Dialogues and Alignment

Personalisation in dialogue systems has traditionally been approached through persona conditioning, where responses are generated based on user\-specific attributes or profiles[Zhang et al\. \(2018\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib9)\.[Li et al\. \(2016\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib11)demonstrated that conditioning on textual persona descriptions improves speaker consistency and engagement in open\-domain dialogue\. Subsequent research extended this paradigm by incorporating demographic and contextual attributes such as age, gender, and emotion into dialogue systems[Zhao et al\. \(2025b\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib15), influencing response content and style\. While prior work shows that personas shape stylistic behaviour[Joshi et al\. \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib12);[Zhao et al\. \(2025a\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib13);[Lee et al\. \(2025\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib14), these approaches typically treat style as a static property of a user or conversation, rather than as a signal that evolves across interaction turns\.

At the same time, surveys on personalised language models highlight tone and writing style as key personalisation factors, alongside relevance and accuracy[Zhang et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib10)\. Effective personalisation, therefore, requires models to adapt to users’ stylistic preferences across different contexts, rather than producing an average response\. However, most existing preference datasets do not explicitly label style or capture how stylistic alignment changes over multi\-turn conversations\. This limitation motivates the development of conversational datasets that jointly model style, persona, and preference dynamics over time\.

RLHF has become the dominant paradigm for aligning language models with human preferences, typically using pairwise comparisons aggregated into a single reward signal\([Ouyang et al\., 2022](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib16);[Bai et al\., 2022](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib17);[Ziegler et al\., 2019](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib18)\)\. While recent work explores personalisation and pluralistic alignment by modelling heterogeneous or user\-conditioned preferences[Poddar et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib19);[Park et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib20);[Cheng et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib21), existing RLHF datasets primarily focus on global qualities such as helpfulness, safety, and correctness\. Stylistic factors, particularly tone and writing style, are rarely annotated explicitly, and preference signals are generally treated as static rather than context\-dependent\.

Taken together, prior work on personalised dialogue and preference\-based alignment provides mechanisms for modelling*who*the speaker is and*what*they prefer, but offers limited support for capturing*how*stylistic expression evolves over the course of a conversation\. Most datasets either abstract away conversational context or collapse preferences into a single reward signal, limiting their ability to capture fine\-grained, progressive stylistic changes\. These limitations highlight shortcomings in existing resources for studying dynamic tone adaptation and stylistic alignment in multi\-turn conversations\.

## 3Methodology

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/ConvoDrift_framework.png)Figure 1:Overview of the ConvoDrift data construction and evaluation pipeline\.1Data Generationillustrates the creation of structured multi\-turn conversations across diverse domains and scenarios using selected language models, followed by the derivation of stylistically contrasting responses for RLHF pairwise preference data with persona\-conditioned profiling\.2Data Validationshows the quality assurance process, combining human validation via a custom annotation interface and LLM\-as\-a\-judge validation\.3Evaluation Experimentssummarises the downstream evaluation protocols applied to the resulting datasets\.ConvoDriftis a multi\-stage data generation and validation dataset designed to support both the analysis of multi\-turn stylistic tone drift and persona\-conditioned preference learning for personalised RLHF\. Accordingly, the dataset consists of two core stages, each producing a distinct but tightly coupled dataset\. \(1\)ConvoDrift–Conversation: A multi\-turn conversational dataset that captures progressive stylistic tone drift under fixed semantic intent\. \(2\)ConvoDrift–RLHF: A persona\-conditioned pairwise preference dataset constructed from conversational trajectories to enable personalised and pluralistic alignment\.

As shown in Figure[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.F1), both datasets reuse the same multi\-turn prompts and responses\. The RLHF subset restructures responses from these conversations into style\-contrasting preference pairs\. This unified design ensures consistency between conversational structure and preference supervision, enablingConvoDriftto serve as both a diagnostic benchmark for tone drift and a resource for studying personalised and pluralistic alignment[Poddar et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib19)\. To provide empirical evidence of the dataset’s effectiveness, we conducted a downstream preference modelling task using VPL with representations of GPT\-2 and Llama 3\.1 8B, achieving accuracies of 0\.579 and 0\.65, respectively, with further details provided in Appendix[A](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A1)\.

### 3\.1Conversational Dataset Creation

This section describes howConvoDriftwas constructed to capture progressive conversational tone changes while preserving semantic intent across multiple turns\.

#### 3\.1\.1Model Selection and Generation Setup

To select appropriate models for data generation, we conducted a preliminary comparison across 12 Large Language Models \(LLMs\) using an identical set of conversational prompts\. Models were evaluated based on output quality, adherence to stylistic instructions, latency, and estimated token\-level cost under a fixed input–output budget\. Based on this comparison, we selectedGPT\-4\.1\-minias the primary model for conversational response generation due to its consistent output quality and reliable stylistic control, andGPT\-5\-nanofor generating explicit drift, direction labels due to its higher quality and lower latency outputs\. Using this setup, we generated 15,727 multi\-turn conversations, each containing six prompt–response pairs, resulting in a total of 94,362 response turns\. This has been discussed in detail in Appendix[B](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A2)\.

#### 3\.1\.2Prompt Design and Quality Control

ConvoDriftgenerates conversations across multiple genres as shown in Table[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.T1)with distinct stylistic norms, spanning both professional and informal contexts\. Each genre is paired with diverse communicative scenarios, and prompts enforce semantic preservation while allowing controlled stylistic variation\. Generated conversations are then filtered using a rule\-based quality pipeline to ensure structural consistency, including a fixed conversation length, valid drift annotations, and the presence of multiple stylistic drift events\.

Table 1:Conversation counts by communication genre in theConvoDriftdataset\.
#### 3\.1\.3Multi\-turn Conversational Structure

Each conversation is structured as a sequence of six prompt–response pairs:

C=\{\(pt,rt\)\}t=16\.C=\\\{\(p\_\{t\},r\_\{t\}\)\\\}\_\{t=1\}^\{6\}\.\(1\)whereptp\_\{t\}denotes the user prompt at turnttandrtr\_\{t\}the corresponding response generated conditionally on the preceding conversational context\. Figure[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.F2)provides an illustrative example of this six\-turn structure\. The first prompt reflects the user’s original request, denoted as T1 is always annotated asDrift=False\. Subsequent turns refine the previous response based on the user’s prompt; we setDrift=Trueonly when the prompt explicitly requests a style/tone change\.

Importantly, semantic content is preserved across turns, enabling the dataset to capture drift trajectories rather than isolated stylistic rewrites[Roy et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib8)\.

Example conversation \(Tweet domain; scenario: share a thought about learning through challenges\)\.T1 \(Drift=False\) User:I want to share a tweet about how recovery should be viewed as an essential, ongoing part of resilience, not just an end goal\.Assistant:Recovery isn’t the finish line—it’s a crucial part of the journey\. Every step of healing, no matter how small, builds resilience\. Embrace the process and honor your progress\. \#Resilience \#HealingT2 \(Drift=True; Direction=2\) User:Rewrite it in a more formal and precise tone, emphasizing that recovery is a gradual process\.Assistant:Recovery is a gradual process rather than a fixed endpoint\. Each stage contributes to resilience and supports sustained personal growth\.T3 \(Drift=False\) User:Make it shorter and more direct for a busy feed\.Assistant:Recovery isn’t the finish line—it’s every brave step forward\. Healing builds resilience, one moment at a time\. \#Resilience \#HealingT4 \(Drift=True; Direction=1\) User:Rewrite with a more casual, approachable tone\.Assistant:Hey, recovery’s not just about getting to the end—it’s every little step you take to heal\. Even when it’s slow, you’re building strength\. Keep going\. \#ResilienceT5 \(Drift=True; Direction=0\) User:Include a nature metaphor to symbolise recovery and resilience\.Assistant:Recovery is like a tree growing through the seasons—sometimes slow, sometimes tough, but always reaching for the light\. Keep reaching\. \#Resilience \#NatureHealsT6 \(Drift=False\) User:Keep the tree\-growth metaphor and condense the message into two clear sentences\.Assistant:Recovery parallels a tree’s growth through seasons—steady and resilient\. Each phase of healing strengthens the foundation for future growth\.

Figure 2:ExampleConvoDriftconversation illustrating progressive tone edits under fixed semantic intent\.
#### 3\.1\.4Drift, Direction Labels, and Metadata

Each prompt–response pair is annotated with two complementary labels, which are shown in the example conversation in Figure[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.F2)\.

- •Abinary drift label\(Drift\), indicating whether the user prompt requests a stylistic/tone change; and
- •Adirection label\(Direction\), indicating the direction of the stylistic shift relative to the previous response\.

The direction label is defined as:

direction=\{0,no stylistic change1,casual / expressive tone2,formal / precise tone\\texttt\{direction\}=\\left\\\{\\begin\{array\}\[\]\{ll\}0,&\\textit\{no stylistic change\}\\\\ 1,&\\textit\{casual / expressive tone\}\\\\ 2,&\\textit\{formal / precise tone\}\\end\{array\}\\right\.
The drift label is primarily driven by the user prompt, whereas direction is inferred from the stylistic properties of the generated response\. For example, in Figure[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.F2), T4 is markedDrift=Truebecause the user asks for a “more casual” rewrite, and the corresponding response is labelled withDirection=1to reflect a shift toward a more casual/expressive style\. These two labels are evaluated independently to avoid conflating intended stylistic instructions with their realised linguistic effects\. Main statistics about the dataset has been discussed in Appendix[D](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A4)\.

### 3\.2Conversion to RLHF Pairwise Data

This section explains how conversational trajectories are transformed into semantically aligned but stylistically contrasting response pairs for persona\-conditioned preference learning\.

#### 3\.2\.1Pairwise Preference Construction

Each multi\-turn conversation inConvoDriftconsists of a sequence of prompts that progressively request stylistic refinements to a response, producing a trajectory of responses with shared semantic intent but differing stylistic realisations\.

To derive preference supervision suitable for RLHF, we construct pairwise preference instances by selecting a promptppfrom the conversation and pairing two responses associated with it\. Specifically, the initial response generated for the task is treated as one candidate \(yay\_\{a\}\), while a later response from the same conversation corresponding to an explicit stylistic drift with a known direction \(e\.g\., casual or formal\) is selected as the contrasting candidate \(yby\_\{b\}\)\. The process of constructing the RLHF pairwise dataset section is shown in Figure[1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.F1)\.

Response pairs may be drawn from adjacent or non\-adjacent turns, depending on the desired degree of stylistic contrast\. By construction, both responses are semantically equivalent, and preference distinctions arise solely from stylistic variation rather than content differences\. Each preference instance is represented as a tuple\(p,ya,yb\)\(p,y\_\{a\},y\_\{b\}\), following the standard pairwise preference\-learning formulation used in RLHF[Christiano et al\. \(2017\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib25);[Ouyang et al\. \(2022\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib16)\.

Table 2:Persona profiles used for persona\-conditioned preference labelling\. Each persona encodes a distinct communication focus that guides stylistic preference judgements\.
#### 3\.2\.2Persona\-based Preference Learning

ConvoDriftsupports persona\-conditioned preference learning by leveraging the explicit stylistic annotations available in the underlying conversational dataset\. Since each response is labelled with drift and direction tags \(e\.g\., toward casual/expressive or formal/precise\), stylistic preferences can be systematically grouped and evaluated without relying on implicit or noisy preference inference\.

As an experimental instantiation, we define five communication personas, each encoding a consistent stylistic bias shown in Table[2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.T2)\. These personas are not intended to model user identity, but rather to represent distinct and interpretable evaluation perspectives over stylistic variation\.

For each example, which includes a prompt and two responses, each persona independently chooses the response that best matches its communication style\. This produces separate preference labels for each persona\. By keeping these persona\-specific labels instead of combining them into a single decision, the dataset preserves differences in stylistic preferences\. This design allows us to study personalised and pluralistic alignment, in which multiple communication styles are treated as valid at the same time[Cheng et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib21);[Poddar et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib19)\.

## 4Evaluation and Experiments

### 4\.1Conversational Dataset

This section evaluates the reliability and quality of the conversational dataset through human validation, LLM\-as\-a\-judge assessment, and automatic semantic and lexical analyses\.

#### 4\.1\.1Human Evaluation

We conducted a human evaluation to assess the correctness of tone drift annotations and the overall quality of multi\-turn conversations inConvoDrift\. Given the cost and time of manual validation, three independent annotators evaluated a stratified subset of the dataset using a sampling strategy designed to balance coverage with reliable agreement estimation\.

Since human validation is particularly valuable but limited, we used a controlled\-overlap design to maximise the number of human\-validated conversations while still enabling agreement analysis: 175 conversations were annotated by all annotators \(gold set\), 300 conversations were annotated by two annotators \(100 conversations per annotator pair\), and 375 conversations were annotated by a single annotator \(125 unique conversations per annotator\)\. This results in 1,500 conversation\-level ratings in total \(500 per annotator\), covering 850 unique conversations\. The communication genre balance was maintained across all subsets, ensuring each genre was represented in similar proportions\. Inter\-annotator agreement metrics were computed exclusively on the gold set, while the remaining annotated data was used for qualitative analysis and downstream evaluation\.

Annotators evaluated each conversation on seven ordinal criteria using a five\-point Likert scale\. We measure agreement on these ordinal ratings using Krippendorff’sα\\alphafor ordinal data, which supports multiple annotators[Krippendorff \(2011\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib23), and report the resulting scores in Table[3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.T3)\.

In addition to the scalar ratings, annotators were instructed to correct drift flags and tone direction labels whenever inconsistencies were identified\. Drift is annotated as a binary value indicating whether a tone change is requested in the prompt, while direction labels specify the direction of tone change \(no change, formal to casual, or casual to formal\)\. For validating these drift and direction labels on the common subset, inter\-annotator agreement was Driftα\\alpha:*0\.7628*and Directionα\\alpha:*0\.7772*\. Overall, the agreement results indicate substantial reliability for studying conversational stylistic drift and personalised alignment\.

#### 4\.1\.2LLM\-as\-a\-Judge Evaluation

In addition to human validation, we employed an LLM\-as\-a\-judge framework[Zheng et al\. \(2023\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib24)\. After human evaluation, the remaining portion of the dataset was evaluated usingGemini 3 Flashas an automatic judge\. The LLM was prompted to assign drift labels, direction labels, and conversation\-level quality ratings using the same annotation guidelines followed by human annotators\. To assess the reliability of the LLM judge, its outputs were compared against a gold\-standard human reference constructed via majority voting over human annotations\. Agreement for the drift and direction labels was measured using Cohen’sκ\\kappa\. The LLM demonstrates strong agreement with human validation for tone drift detection, achieving Drift of*0\.888*, and substantial agreement for tone direction labelling with Direction of*0\.930*[Cohen \(1960\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib28)\. These results indicate that the LLM reliably identifies when tone changes occur and correctly captures their directional shift, while aligning with human annotator decisions\.

Table 3:Inter\-annotator agreement on the common subset measured using Krippendorff’s alpha for ordinal data\. Confidence intervals correspond to 95% bootstrap intervals\.
#### 4\.1\.3Automatic Evaluation

Semantic Similarity:We evaluate semantic preservation across refinement turns using sentence\-level semantic similarity computed withSBERTembeddings[Reimers and Gurevych \(2019\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib27)\. We report three complementary measures: \(i\)adjacent\-turn similarity, which compares consecutive turns and captures local semantic continuity; \(ii\)anchor similarity, which compares each turn against the initial response and captures global meaning preservation; and \(iii\)end\-to\-start similarity, which compares the final turn of a conversation with its initial response to measure start\-to\-end semantic retention\.

As shown in Table[4](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.T4), both adjacent\-turn and anchor similarity remain high\. Adjacent\-turn similarity has a mean of 0\.899, and anchor similarity has a mean of 0\.890, indicating that responses preserve semantic intent both locally and globally as stylistic refinements progress\. Additionally, end\-to\-start similarity is also high, with a mean of 0\.852, indicating that meaning is largely retained from the first to the final turn\.

Unlike lexical similarity, we do not stratify semantic similarity by drift labels: drift inConvoDriftis intended to change style, but regardless of whether a prompt requests drift or not, the underlying meaning of responses should be preserved throughout the conversation\. Therefore, semantic similarity is evaluated using these three turn\-level views of meaning preservation\.

We further analyse semantic preservation across communication genres, as depicted in Table[5](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.T5), which presents domain\-wise end\-to\-start similarity statistics\.

Lexical Similarity:While semantic similarity remains high across turns, lexical overlap can change substantially when tone edits are introduced\. We evaluate lexical variation across consecutive turns to quantify these surface\-level changes\. Lexical similarity is computed usingROUGE\-L\(longest common subsequence overlap\),Jaccard\-1\(unigram overlap\), andJaccard\-2\(bigram overlap\)\.

Genre\-wise lexical similarity within non\-drift regions \(Within; Drift=False\) and at drift boundaries \(Boundary; Drift=True\) in turns within the conversations is summarised in Table[6](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.T6)\. Across all metrics and genres, within transitions consistently exhibit higher overlap than boundary transitions\. Overall, the drops inROUGE\-L,Jaccard\-1, andJaccard\-2at boundary transitions indicate that tone drift is accompanied by meaningful lexical rephrasing, although the underlying semantic intent is preserved\.

Table 4:Overall turn\-level semantic similarity across refinement turns\.Table 5:Domain\-wise end\-to\-start semantic similarity measured usingSBERTacross different communication genres\.Table 6:Genre\-wise lexical similarity between consecutive turns in conversations within non\-drift regions \(Within; Drift=False\) and at drift boundaries \(Boundary; Drift=True\), reported withROUGE\-Land unigram/bigramJaccard\(nntransitions\)\.

### 4\.2Persona\-conditioned RLHF Dataset

This section evaluates the quality of the pairwise preference labels and their ability to capture consistent yet distinct persona\-conditioned communication preferences\.

#### 4\.2\.1Experimental study

We evaluate candidate LLM judges using stability, persona sensitivity, style entropy, and formal preference rate to select a reliable model for persona\-conditioned labelling\. During the construction of this pairwise dataset, we removed data points with semantic similarity below 0\.6 to keep the dataset semantically similar but stylistically distinct\.

Stability Consistency:Stability measures how consistently an LLM returns the same preference label when asked multiple times under identical conditions\. For each sample and persona, we query the model five times and report stability as the fraction of runs that match the majority label \(e\.g\., 5/5 indicates perfect stability\)\. High stability indicates that the model’s outputs are not dominated by randomness\.

Persona Sensitivity:Persona sensitivity measures how strongly an LLM differentiates between personas by quantifying how often personas disagree on the preferred response \(formal vs\. casual\) for the same sample\. For each sample annotated byKKpersonas, we compute sensitivity using the*average pairwise disagreement rate*across persona pairs:

Sensitivity=1\(K2\)​∑i<j𝐈⁡\(si≠sj\),\\mathrm\{Sensitivity\}=\\frac\{1\}\{\\binom\{K\}\{2\}\}\\sum\_\{i<j\}\\mathbf\{I\}\(s\_\{i\}\\neq s\_\{j\}\),\(2\)
wheresis\_\{i\}andsjs\_\{j\}denote the preference labels inferred for personasiiandjj\. We report sensitivity by averaging this disagreement score across samples\. Low values indicate that most personas agree on the same response, while high values indicate substantial disagreement across personas\.

Style Entropy:Style entropy measures how consistent or flexible a persona’s preferences are across samples, based on how balanced its selections are between the two styles \(formal vs\. casual\)\. For each persona, we compute*Shannon entropy*[Shannon \(1948\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib26)\(in bits\) based on how often it chooses formal vs\. casual responses:

styleentropy=−∑s∈\{formal,casual\}p\(s\)log2p\(s\),\\mathrm\{style\\,entropy\}=\-\\textstyle\\sum\_\{s\\in\\\{\\mathrm\{formal\},\\mathrm\{casual\}\\\}\}p\(s\)\\log\_\{2\}p\(s\),\(3\)
wherep⁡\(s\)p\(s\)denotes the fraction of times the persona selects stylessacross the evaluation set\. Low entropy indicates that a persona almost always prefers the same style, reflecting highly consistent preferences, while high entropy indicates that a persona selects both styles at more similar rates, reflecting more context\-dependent preferences\.

Average Formal Preference Rate:The average formal preference rate summarises the model’s overall tendency to prefer formal responses across all comparisons, independent of persona\. Low values indicate a global bias toward casual selections, while high values indicate a global bias toward formal selections\. A value close to 0\.5 indicates that, overall, the model selects formal and casual at similar rates\.

Considering the results in Table[7](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.T7),Claude Haiku 4\.5provides the most suitable balance among the evaluated criteria\. It combines very high stability with the strongest persona sensitivity and relatively low global stylistic bias, while maintaining sufficient contextual flexibility\.

Based on this analysis,Claude Haiku 4\.5is selected as the LLM for generating persona\-conditioned preference labels in the final dataset\.

Table 7:Comparison of candidate LLMs for persona\-conditioned preference labelling\.
#### 4\.2\.2Relation to Agreement Analysis

Inter\-persona agreement was assessed using Cohen’sκ\\kappato examine whether the personas make similar or contrasting stylistic preference judgments\. The plot shows two broad preference patterns\. Personas A, C, and D each have two scores above theκ=0\\kappa=0line, indicating positive agreement with one another, while Personas B and E have one positive score representing their agreement with each other\. The remaining scores fall below zero, showing disagreement between these two groups\. Although some personas share similar preferences, differences in the distribution and magnitude of their agreement scores indicate that each persona retains distinct evaluative characteristics\. Further details, including the exact pairwise agreement values, are provided in Appendix[C](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A3)\.

Figure 3:Distribution of pairwise agreement scores for each persona using Cohen’sκ\\kappa\.

## 5Conclusion

In this paper, we introducedConvoDrift, a benchmark for modelling progressive stylistic tone drift in multi\-turn conversations\. By utilising a shared conversational structure, we explicitly separate semantic intent from stylistic variation, enabling the derivation of both multi\-turn drift trajectories and persona\-conditioned preference datasets for pluralistic alignment\. Comprehensive validation via human assessment, LLM\-as\-a\-judge, and lexical metrics confirms that this preserves semantic meaning while capturing structured stylistic dynamics\.

## 6Limitations and Future Directions

There are several avenues remain for future exploration to address the constraints of our current approach\. First, as a synthetically generated dataset designed to emulate human–LLM conversations, it lacks the variability and spontaneity inherent in real\-world organic data; thus, future work may include real human conversations to capture this realism\. Second, we currently measure tone variations only between “formal” and “casual” styles, so future research can explore more complex emotions and subtle style shifts\. Third, all conversations are constrained to a fixed length of six turns, limiting the analysis of longer\-range stylistic dependencies and naturally varying dialogue lengths\. Fourth, as the dataset is predominantly synthetically generated and LLM\-annotated, it may inherit model\-specific stylistic patterns and annotation biases that do not fully reflect naturally occurring human–LLM interactions\. Finally, persona conditioning is restricted to five predefined personas; expanding this space to include a broader range of user preferences would further strengthen the dataset’s relevance for personalisation and pluralistic alignment research\.

## References

- Baiet al\.\(2022\)Y\. Bai, A\. Jones, K\. Ndousse, A\. Askell, A\. Chen, N\. DasSarma, D\. Drain, S\. Fort, D\. Ganguli, T\. Henighan,et al\.Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204\.05862\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p3.1)\.
- Chenget al\.\(2023\)P\. Cheng, J\. Xie, K\. Bai, Y\. Dai, and N\. DuEveryone deserves a reward: learning customized human preferences\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309\.03126\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p3.1),[§3\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.SS2.SSS2.p3.1)\.
- Chenget al\.\(2020\)Y\. Cheng, Z\. Gan, Y\. Zhang, O\. Elachqar, D\. Li, and J\. LiuContextual text style transfer\.InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020,Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S1.p2.1)\.
- Christianoet al\.\(2017\)P\. F\. Christiano, J\. Leike, T\. Brown, M\. Martic, S\. Legg, and D\. AmodeiDeep reinforcement learning from human preferences\.Advances in neural information processing systems30\.Cited by:[§3\.2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.SS2.SSS1.p3.1)\.
- Cohen \(1960\)J\. CohenA coefficient of agreement for nominal scales\.Educational and psychological measurement20\(1\),pp\. 37–46\.Cited by:[§4\.1\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.SS1.SSS2.p1.1)\.
- Danescu\-Niculescu\-Mizilet al\.\(2013\)C\. Danescu\-Niculescu\-Mizil, M\. Sudhof, D\. Jurafsky, J\. Leskovec, and C\. PottsA computational approach to politeness with application to social factors\.InProceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Ficler and Goldberg \(2017\)J\. Ficler and Y\. GoldbergControlling linguistic style aspects in neural language generation\.InProceedings of the Workshop on Stylistic Variation,Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Fuet al\.\(2018\)Z\. Fu, X\. Tan, N\. Peng, D\. Zhao, and R\. YanStyle transfer in text: exploration and evaluation\.InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence,Vol\.32\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Huet al\.\(2017\)Z\. Hu, Z\. Yang, X\. Liang, R\. Salakhutdinov, and E\. P\. XingToward controlled generation of text\.InInternational conference on machine learning,pp\. 1587–1596\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Joshiet al\.\(2017\)C\. K\. Joshi, F\. Mi, and B\. FaltingsPersonalization in goal\-oriented dialog\.arXiv preprint arXiv:1706\.07503\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Krippendorff \(2011\)K\. KrippendorffComputing krippendorff’s alpha\-reliability\.Cited by:[§4\.1\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.SS1.SSS1.p3.1)\.
- Leeet al\.\(2025\)J\. Lee, Y\. Jeon, S\. Seo, and G\. LeePicPersona\-TOD : a dataset for personalizing utterance style in task\-oriented dialogue with image persona\.InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),External Links:ISBN 979\-8\-89176\-189\-6Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Liet al\.\(2016\)J\. Li, M\. Galley, C\. Brockett, G\. Spithourakis, J\. Gao, and B\. DolanA persona\-based neural conversation model\.InProceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Niu and Bansal \(2018\)T\. Niu and M\. BansalPolite dialogue generation without parallel data\.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics6\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Ouyanget al\.\(2022\)L\. Ouyang, J\. Wu, X\. Jiang, D\. Almeida, C\. Wainwright, P\. Mishkin, C\. Zhang, S\. Agarwal, K\. Slama, A\. Ray,et al\.Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback\.Advances in neural information processing systems35,pp\. 27730–27744\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p3.1),[§3\.2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.SS2.SSS1.p3.1)\.
- Parket al\.\(2024\)C\. Park, M\. Liu, D\. Kong, K\. Zhang, and A\. OzdaglarRlhf from heterogeneous feedback via personalization and preference aggregation\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405\.00254\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p3.1)\.
- Poddaret al\.\(2024\)S\. Poddar, Y\. Wan, H\. Ivison, A\. Gupta, and N\. JaquesPersonalizing reinforcement learning from human feedback with variational preference learning\.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37,pp\. 52516–52544\.Cited by:[Appendix A](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A1.p1.1),[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S1.p2.1),[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p3.1),[§3\.2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.SS2.SSS2.p3.1),[§3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.p2.1)\.
- Rao and Tetreault \(2018\)S\. Rao and J\. TetreaultDear sir or madam, may I introduce the GYAFC dataset: corpus, benchmarks and metrics for formality style transfer\.InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 \(Long Papers\),Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S1.p1.1),[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Reimers and Gurevych \(2019\)N\. Reimers and I\. GurevychSentence\-BERT: sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT\-networks\.InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing \(EMNLP\-IJCNLP\),K\. Inui, J\. Jiang, V\. Ng, and X\. Wan \(Eds\.\),Hong Kong, China,pp\. 3982–3992\.External Links:[Link](https://aclanthology.org/D19-1410/),[Document](https://dx.doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1410)Cited by:[§4\.1\.3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.SS1.SSS3.p1.1)\.
- Royet al\.\(2023\)S\. Roy, R\. Shu, N\. Pappas, E\. Mansimov, Y\. Zhang, S\. Mansour, and D\. RothConversation style transfer using few\-shot learning\.InProceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia\-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),Cited by:[§1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S1.p1.1),[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p2.1),[§3\.1\.3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S3.SS1.SSS3.p2.1)\.
- Shannon \(1948\)C\. E\. ShannonA mathematical theory of communication\.The Bell system technical journal27\(3\),pp\. 379–423\.Cited by:[§4\.2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.SS2.SSS1.p6.1)\.
- Shenet al\.\(2017\)T\. Shen, T\. Lei, R\. Barzilay, and T\. JaakkolaStyle transfer from non\-parallel text by cross\-alignment\.Advances in neural information processing systems30\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p1.1)\.
- Zhanget al\.\(2018\)S\. Zhang, E\. Dinan, J\. Urbanek, A\. Szlam, D\. Kiela, and J\. WestonPersonalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?\.InProceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics \(Volume 1: Long Papers\),Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Zhanget al\.\(2024\)Z\. Zhang, R\. A\. Rossi, B\. Kveton, Y\. Shao, D\. Yang, H\. Zamani, F\. Dernoncourt, J\. Barrow, T\. Yu, S\. Kim,et al\.Personalization of large language models: a survey\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411\.00027\.Cited by:[§2\.1](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS1.p4.1),[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p2.1)\.
- Zhaoet al\.\(2025a\)W\. Zhao, X\. Sui, Y\. Hu, J\. Guo, H\. Liu, B\. Li, Y\. Zhao, B\. Qin, and T\. LiuTeaching language models to evolve with users: dynamic profile modeling for personalized alignment\.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505\.15456\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Zhaoet al\.\(2025b\)Z\. Zhao, C\. Vania, S\. Kayal, N\. Khan, S\. B\. Cohen, and E\. YilmazPersonaLens: a benchmark for personalization evaluation in conversational AI assistants\.InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025,External Links:ISBN 979\-8\-89176\-256\-5Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p1.1)\.
- Zhenget al\.\(2023\)L\. Zheng, W\. Chiang, Y\. Sheng, S\. Zhuang, Z\. Wu, Y\. Zhuang, Z\. Lin, Z\. Li, D\. Li, E\. Xing,et al\.Judging llm\-as\-a\-judge with mt\-bench and chatbot arena\.Advances in neural information processing systems36,pp\. 46595–46623\.Cited by:[§4\.1\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.SS1.SSS2.p1.1)\.
- Ziegleret al\.\(2019\)D\. M\. Ziegler, N\. Stiennon, J\. Wu, T\. B\. Brown, A\. Radford, D\. Amodei, P\. Christiano, and G\. IrvingFine\-tuning language models from human preferences\.arXiv preprint arXiv:1909\.08593\.Cited by:[§2\.2](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S2.SS2.p3.1)\.

## Appendix ADownstream Validation with VPL

To examine the effectiveness of the proposed dataset beyond direct label annotation, we conducted a downstream validation experiment using Variational Preference Learning \(VPL\)[Poddar et al\. \(2024\)](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#bib.bib19)\. The purpose of this task was to show the effectiveness of the proposed drift and direction labels in providing useful learning signals for preference modelling, and to assess whether the dataset captures meaningful persona\-specific preference patterns\. VPL is well\-suited for this analysis because it represents preference learning as a latent\-variable problem, where the latent variablezzcaptures hidden user or annotator context and enables the reward model to predict preferences conditioned on that context, rather than averaging all preferences into a single reward function\.

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/tsne_plot_clustering.png)Figure 4:t\-SNE visualisation of the latent representations learned by the Llama 3\.1 8B\-based VPL model\.![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/tsne_plot_clustering_gpt_2.png)Figure 5:t\-SNE visualisation of the latent representations learned by the GPT\-2\-based VPL model\.Following this setup, we used the prompt together with response A and response B from our pairwise dataset, treating Persona A and Persona B as two distinct preference contexts\. The model was trained to predict the preferred response under the corresponding persona\-conditioned setting\. We evaluated the VPL\-based model using two representation backbones: GPT\-2 and Llama 3\.1 8B\. The GPT\-2\-based model achieved an accuracy of 0\.579, while the model using Llama 3\.1 8B representations achieved a higher accuracy of 0\.65\. This indicates that the proposed labels provide predictive signal for distinguishing persona\-dependent preferences\. The stronger performance of Llama 3\.1 8B is likely due to its larger parameter capacity and richer representation quality, which allow it to capture more fine\-grained stylistic and persona\-conditioned differences\.

We further visualised the learned latent representations using t\-SNE plots\. The resulting visualisations show clearer clustering for the Llama 3\.1 8B\-based model, with two distinct clusters corresponding to Persona A and Persona B\. This separation suggests that the model learned structured differences between the two persona\-conditioned preference distributions\. Therefore, the downstream experiment provides additional evidence that the proposed drift and direction labels are meaningful, and that the dataset supports persona\-sensitive preference learning\. Since VPL is designed to learn separable latent representations for divergent user preferences, these results strengthen the validity of our dataset for pluralistic and adaptive preference modelling\.

## Appendix BPrompts used for dataset generation

The dataset was generated using a structured prompting strategy designed to produce multi\-turn conversations exhibiting controlled stylistic tone drift while preserving semantic intent\. For each communication domain, a dedicated prompt template was used to guide the generation process\. All prompts enforce a fixed conversation length of six prompt–response pairs and require the assistant to rewrite the full response at every turn based on incremental user feedback\.

Across all domains, the first prompt in each conversation requests an initial draft and is explicitly constrained to have no tone drift\. Subsequent prompts introduce natural, user\-like revision requests\. Tone drift is annotated at the transition level and is allowed only when a noticeable change in tone occurs, such as formal to casual or vice versa\. To ensure realism, each conversation contains a minimum of two and a maximum of three tone\-drift transitions distributed organically across turns two to six\.

All prompts enforce strict output constraints, including a fixed JSON schema, full response rewrites at every turn, and prohibition of placeholders\. This design ensures consistency across domains while allowing stylistically diverse refinements\. The following sections provide the exact prompt templates used for each communication genre\.

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/Business_Email_Prompt.png)

Figure 6:Business Email prompt template used for dataset generation\.![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/Casual_Email_Prompt.png)

Figure 7:Casual Email prompt template used for dataset generation\.![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/LinkedIn_Prompt.png)

Figure 8:LinkedIn post prompt template used for dataset generation\.![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/Quotes_and_Wishes_Prompt.png)

Figure 9:Quotes and wishes prompt template used for dataset generation\.![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/Tweet_Prompt.png)

Figure 10:Tweet post prompt template used for dataset generation\.![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/LLM_as_a_judge_prompt.png)

Figure 11:Prompt template used for LLM as a Judge\.
## Appendix CPairwise Inter\-Persona Agreement

Table[8](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A3.T8)presents the complete pairwiseκ\\kappaagreement scores underlying the persona\-level distributions shown in Figure[3](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#S4.F3)\. Positive values indicate similar stylistic preferences between persona pairs, whereas negative values indicate consistent preferences for opposing stylistic choices\.

Table 8:Pairwise Cohen’sκ\\kappaagreement between personas\.
## Appendix DDataset Distribution Statistics

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/drift_distribution_by_turn.png)Figure 12:Distribution of drift labels across conversation turns\.Figure[12](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A4.F12)shows how drift changes throughout the conversations\. All first turns are labelled as non\-drift because they establish the initial conversational context\. Drift is most common in the second turn, occurring in 74\.8% of conversations\. The proportion decreases to 52\.8% in turn three, increases to 60\.3% in turn four, and remains approximately balanced between drift and non\-drift in turns five and six\.

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/direction_distribution_by_turn.png)Figure 13:Distribution of direction labels across conversation turns\.Figure[13](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A4.F13)presents the distribution of direction labels\. The first turn predominantly has no direction because it does not contain drift\. Direction 1 is most frequent in turn two, accounting for 56\.4% of conversations\. The direction distribution becomes more balanced in later turns, particularly in turn four, where Directions 1 and 2 each represent approximately 30% of conversations\.

![Refer to caption](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873v1/figures/response_length_distribution_by_communication_genre.png)Figure 14:Distribution of response length by communication genre\.Figure[14](https://arxiv.org/html/2610.02873#A4.F14)shows response length, measured in words, for each communication genre\. Business emails have the longest responses, with a median of 127 words, followed by LinkedIn posts with 114 words and casual emails with 103 words\. Quotes and wishes and tweets are substantially shorter, with median lengths of 33 and 39 words, respectively\. These differences are consistent with the expected structural and stylistic requirements of each communication genre\.