Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study ($n=81$) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.

Typical LLM responses tend to follow a default style, even though users often have distinct preferences regarding tone, verbosity, and formality that they do not explicitly state in their prompts. Evaluating whether personalization methods can adapt to these implicit preferences is challenging, since users typically provide prompts rather than reference responses, style preferences are not factually verifiable, and reference-free LLM judges may conflate personalization with general response quality. To address these challenges, we introduce the Arbitrary Preference Mapping (APM) benchmark, which decouples user attributes (e.g. enthusiastic) from response principles (e.g. persuasive) via a hidden, randomized mapping $\mathbf{C}$ that maps user attributes to preferences about response traits. Because $\mathbf{C}$ carries no semantic content and is resampled across runs, models cannot exploit stereotypical associations and must infer preferences from conversation history. Using this unbiased evaluation methodology, we adapt retrieval-augmented, prompt-optimization, and routing personalization methods and evaluate them on Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-3.5-27B. Our results show that routing is the most reliable approach, while RAG only improves with the stronger base LLM, and soft prompt optimization fails to improve significantly over a non-personalized baseline. Our extensive evaluation reveals that in this realistic setting, personalization remains challenging, but our adapted methods show promise.