Best Friends, Not Forever: Evaluating Long-Horizon Persona Collapse and Behavioral Drift in AI Companions
arXiv AIArchived Aug 03, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2607.28818v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI companions increasingly mediate repeated social interaction, users may rely on a stable role and shared history, yet locally acceptable replies do not ensure that either persists. We study two observable long-horizon failures: 'persona collapse', the loss of a deployed role, boundaries, values, or style, and 'behavioral drift', the gradual or recurrent erosion of those properties. We introduce ANCHOR, a controlled synthetic audit that separat
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 30 Jul 2026]
Best Friends, Not Forever: Evaluating Long-Horizon Persona Collapse and Behavioral Drift in AI Companions
Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Akshara Prabhakar, Yu Li, Daniel Lee, Chien-Sheng Wu
As AI companions increasingly mediate repeated social interaction, users may rely on a stable role and shared history, yet locally acceptable replies do not ensure that either persists. We study two observable long-horizon failures: 'persona collapse', the loss of a deployed role, boundaries, values, or style, and 'behavioral drift', the gradual or recurrent erosion of those properties. We introduce ANCHOR, a controlled synthetic audit that separately measures persona enactment and trajectory recall. The study contains 2,008 conversations spanning 27 personas, nine interaction schedules, three generated memory settings, and four evaluated models. The Identity Probe combines a sealed 102-item questionnaire with turn-level judgments, while the Trajectory Probe scores 110 calibrated counterfactual questions from 35 conversation banks. Our results show that no evaluated model and configuration reliably preserves either dimensions: trajectory accuracy averages only 44.4%, user-state recall remains near four-option chance, and no tested context condition or memory consistently resolves these failures. Questionnaire retention also varies by model and persona facet, disagrees with turn-level behavior, and is sensitive to evaluator choice. These results indicate that current systems do not yet reliably support long-horizon companion continuity and that audits must distinguish persona enactment, trajectory recall, evaluator provenance, and deployment context rather than collapse them into a single trust or stability score.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2607.28818 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.28818v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28818
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Pranav Narayanan Venkit [view email]
[v1] Thu, 30 Jul 2026 20:18:39 UTC (1,137 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-07
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CL
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)