CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Aug 03, 2026

Best Friends, Not Forever: Evaluating Long-Horizon Persona Collapse and Behavioral Drift in AI Companions

arXiv AI Archived 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Aug 03, 2026
    Archived
    Aug 03, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗