Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.05858

Prompting Science Report 4: Playing Pretend: Expert Personas Don't Improve Factual Accuracy

Savir Basil·Ina Shapiro·Dan Shapiro·Ethan Mollick·Lilach Mollick·Lennart Meincke
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of short reports that help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working with AI through rigorous testing. Here, we ask whether assigning personas to models improves performance on difficult objective multiple-choice questions. We study both domain-specific expert personas and low-knowledge personas, evaluating six models on GPQA Diamond (Rein et al. 2024) and MMLU-Pro (Wang et al. 2024), graduate-level questions spanning science, engineering, and law. We tested three approaches: -In-Domain Experts: Assigning the model an expert persona ("you are a physics expert") matched to the problem type (physics problems) had no significant impact on performance (with the exception of the Gemini 2.0 Flash model). -Off-Domain Experts (Domain-Mismatched): Assigning the model an expert persona ("you are a physics expert") not matched to the problem type (law problems) resulted in marginal differences. -Low-Knowledge Personas: We assigned the model negative capability personas (layperson, young child, toddler), which were generally harmful to benchmark accuracy. Across both benchmarks, persona prompts generally did not improve accuracy relative to a no-persona baseline. Expert personas showed no consistent benefit across models, with few exceptions. Domain-mismatched expert personas sometimes degraded performance. Low-knowledge personas often reduced accuracy. These results are about the accuracy of answers only; personas may serve other purposes (such as altering the tone of outputs), beyond improving factual performance.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Savir Basil, Ina Shapiro, Dan Shapiro, Ethan Mollick, Lilach Mollick, Lennart Meincke. 2025-12-05. Prompting Science Report 4: Playing Pretend: Expert Personas Don't Improve Factual Accuracy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.05858

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

What is the Role of Small Models in the LLM Era: A Survey

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various reasoning tasks, which leads to the development of increasingly large models. However, scaling up model sizes results in significantly higher computational costs and energy consumption, which makes these models impractical for academic researchers and businesses with limited resources. At the same time, Small Models (SMs) are frequently used in practical settings, although their significance is currently underestimated. This raises important questions about the role of small models in the era of LLMs, a topic that has received limited attention in prior surveys. In this work, we systematically examine the relationship between LLMs and SMs from two key perspectives: Collaboration and Competition (or Complementarity). We hope this survey provides valuable insights for practitioners, fostering a deeper understanding of the contribution of small models and promoting more efficient use of computational resources.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

SG-FSM: A Self-Guiding Zero-Shot Prompting Paradigm for Multi-Hop Question Answering Based on Finite State Machine

Large Language Models with chain-of-thought prompting, such as OpenAI-o1, have shown impressive capabilities in natural language inference tasks. However, Multi-hop Question Answering (MHQA) remains challenging for many existing models due to issues like hallucination, error propagation, and limited context length. To address these challenges and enhance LLMs' performance on MHQA, we propose the Self-Guiding prompting Finite State Machine (SG-FSM), designed to strengthen multi-hop reasoning abilities. Unlike traditional chain-of-thought methods, SG-FSM tackles MHQA by iteratively breaking down complex questions into sub-questions, correcting itself to improve accuracy. It processes one sub-question at a time, dynamically deciding the next step based on the current context and results, functioning much like an automaton. Experiments across various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, outperforming strong baselines on challenging datasets such as Musique. SG-FSM reduces hallucination, enabling recovery of the correct final answer despite intermediate errors. It also improves adherence to specified output formats, simplifying evaluation significantly.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

A Course Intelligence Platform for Higher Education: Lessons from AI-Assisted Course Evaluation

The rapid adoption of generative AI has created new opportunities for teaching, learning, and quality assurance. Existing applications, however, remain largely student-facing, with comparatively limited attention to institution-level needs. This paper presents a course intelligence platform deployed across more than 100 universities and serving over 10,000 instructors in China. By linking competency requirements, knowledge structures, teaching activities, and assessment evidence, it establishes a shared foundation for knowledge organization, instructional design, learning assessment, and quality evaluation. The course evaluation module is examined as a representative institution-facing application of the platform, which integrates national evaluation standards, structured educational evidence, customized prompting strategies, and domain-adapted LLMs to generate quantitative scores and qualitative feedback. A case study involving 100 authentic university courses is conducted to evaluate its alignment with expert judgments and the interpretability of its outputs. Statistical analyses show substantial agreement between AI-generated assessments and expert ratings, while qualitative results highlight the credibility of the feedback. The findings further suggest that AI-assisted evaluation requires not only capable models but also structured domain knowledge and transparent criteria. In this context, human ratings should be treated as an informative reference rather than an error-free gold standard, and the objective is to achieve consistent, interpretable, and defensible judgments instead of merely replicating expert scores.

cs.CL↗