Personalized text generation requires models not only to produce coherent text but also to align with a target user's style, tone, and topical focus. Existing retrieval-augmented approaches such as LaMP and PGraphRAG enrich profiles with user and neighbor histories, but they stop at generation and often yield outputs that drift in tone, topic, or style. We present PerFine, a unified, training-free critique-refine framework that enhances personalization through iterative, profile-grounded feedback. In each iteration, an LLM generator produces a draft conditioned on the retrieved profile, and a critic LLM - also conditioned on the same profile - provides structured feedback on tone, vocabulary, sentence structure, and topicality. The generator then revises, while a novel knockout strategy retains the stronger draft across iterations. We further study additional inference-time strategies such as Best-of-N and Topic Extraction to balance quality and efficiency. Across Yelp, Goodreads, and Amazon datasets, PerFine consistently improves personalization over PGraphRAG, with G-Eval gains of +8.5-12%, steady improvements over 3-5 refinement iterations, and scalability with increasing critic size. These results highlight that post-hoc, profile-aware feedback offers a powerful paradigm for personalized LLM generation that is both training-free and model-agnostic.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our framework for personalized text generation. User profile information is retrieved to guide the generator, whose outputs are iteratively critiqued and refined by PerFine, enabling multi-round personalization.
Dataset
Method
METEOR
G-Eval
Yelp
LaMP
0.156
0.435
PGraphRAG
0.180
0.496
PerFine + Knockout
0.194 ±0.0003
0.543 ±0.0008
Goodreads
LaMP
0.193
0.528
PGraphRAG
0.206
0.534
PerFine + Knockout
0.214 ±0.0015
0.581 ±0.0031
Table 1: Baseline Comparison . The table compares the performance of PerFine+Knockout (mean ±std ) against two baselines: LaMP , where the user profile contains samples only from the user’s own history, and PGraphRAG , which also includes samples from the profile histories of neighboring users. The output of PGraphRAG is taken as the initial generation y0 , over which PerFine+Knockout performs the feedback refinement process. Qwen-2.5-14B-Instruct is used as the critic LLM, while Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct serves as the generator LLM for PerFine and the baseline methods.
Dataset
Critic LLM
METEOR
G-Eval
Yelp
Llama-3.1-8B
0.200
0.521
Qwen-2.5-7B
0.191
0.531
Qwen-2.5-14B
0.195
0.544
Qwen-2.5-32B
0.208
0.577
gpt-5-mini
0.211
0.590
Goodreads
Llama-3.1-8B
0.211
0.558
Table 2: Evaluation of different critic models in the PerFine+Knockout setup (all are instruct models). Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct is the generator.
Figure 2: Performance across iterations on Yelp, Goodreads, and Amazon. PerFine+Knockout starts from the PGraphRAG baseline and exhibits steady improvements, with gains plateauing after a few iterations.
Figure 3: Visualization of the critic’s token usage (prompt + completion) vs normalized G-Eval performance. Notably, PerFine+Knockout improves performance, while PerFine+Knockout+Best-of-N achieves the highest scores, with increased token cost. Considering both efficiency and effectiveness, we ultimately select PerFine+Knockout.
Figure 4: Figure showing generator’s token usage (prompt + completion) vs normalized G-Eval performance. While the token usage for PerFine and PerFine+Knockout is similar, the token footprint increases for PerFine+Knockout+Best-of-N due to the sampling of multiple revisions, while yielding only a marginal improvement in performance.
Dataset
Method
METEOR
G-Eval
# token
# token
(critic)
(gen)
Yelp
PerFine
0.185
0.505
10.77
9.54
+Knockout
0.195
0.544
19.23
9.49
+ Best-of-N
0.197
0.549
28.36
10.63
Goodreads
PerFine
0.209
0.565
11.65
10.57
+Knockout
0.216
0.585
22
10.53
Table 3: Comparison of performance and token usage (prompt+completion) across various inference strategies. We observe that the scores improve as we scale the inference time token usage. However, the additional gains from Best-of-N sampling are marginal, while the associated token usage increases significantly. Token count is per query for 5 iterations in K. Llama-3.1-8B is the generator, and Qwen-2.5-14B is the critic.
Dataset
G-Eval-Style
G-Eval-Content
PGraphRAG
PerFine
PGraphRAG
PerFine
+ Knockout
+ Knockout
Yelp
0.405
0.473
0.427
0.502
Goodreads
0.444
0.498
0.461
0.528
Amazon
0.425
0.491
0.448
0.527
Table 4: Performance of PerFine+Knockout across style and content dimensions. Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct is the generator and gpt-5-mini is the critic.
Method
METEOR
G-Eval
PGraphRAG
0.184
0.524
PerFine+Knockout
Original prompts
0.200
0.589
Critic-Variant-1
0.201
0.583
Critic-Variant-2
0.197
0.584
Knockout-Variant-1
0.201
0.592
Table 5: Prompt sensitivity study of PerFine+Knockout on a 500-sample subset of the Amazon dataset. Each variant perturbs a single prompt while keeping all other prompts unchanged.
Dataset
Generator LLM
METEOR
G-Eval
PGraphRAG
PerFine+Knockout
PGraphRAG
PerFine+Knockout
Yelp
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
0.180
0.195
0.496
0.544
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B
0.167
0.174
0.435
0.461
Ministral-3-3B-Instruct
0.191
0.194
0.550
0.567
Ministral-3-8B-Instruct
0.193
0.203
0.566
0.580
Ministral-3-14B-Instruct
0.200
0.204
0.581
0.600
Table 6: Comparison of different generator LLMs in the PerFine+Knockout setup. Qwen-2.5-14B-Instruct is the critic. PerFine+Knockout consistently improves performance across all generator LLMs.
Dataset
PGraphRAG
PerFine+Knockout
Yelp
0.59
0.64
Goodreads
0.67
0.69
Amazon
0.63
0.66
Table 7: Performance of PerFine+Knockout in the user profile-based evaluation setting, where top- k samples ( k =4) from the author’s writing are used as the reference text. Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct is used as the generator and gpt-5-mini as the critic.
LLM-Judge
Amazon
Yelp
Goodreads
Gemma-3-27B-It
4.76%
8.47%
2.99%
Qwen3-32B
6.45%
10.00%
4.54%
Llama-3.3-70B-It
8.19%
14.00%
7.69%
Table 8: G-Eval percentage gains of PerFine+Knockout over PGraphRAG baseline under different LLM judges in the profile-referenced evaluation setting.
LaMP
PerFine+Knockout
METEOR
0.257
0.265
G-Eval (Ground-truth reference)
Gemma-3-27B-It
0.450
0.470
Qwen3-32B
0.333
0.350
Llama-3.3-70B-It
0.362
0.420
G-Eval (Profile reference)
Table 9: Performance of PerFine+Knockout and the LaMP baseline on the CMCC email-writing dataset. G-Eval scores are reported under different LLM judges, using either the ground-truth email or the author’s past emails as the reference.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Method
METEOR
G-Eval
# token
# token
# token
(critic)
(gen)
(topics)
Yelp
PerFine
0.185
0.505
10.77
9.54
-
PerFine + Topic_Extraction
0.188
0.513
7.73
9.48
2.60
Goodreads
PerFine
0.209
0.565
11.65
10.57
-
PerFine + Topic_Extraction
0.209
0.557
7.73
10.48
2.81
Amazon
PerFine
0.197
0.558
9.58
8.27
-
Appendix
Table 10: Performance and Token usage for Topic Extraction method. The topic extraction method outperforms the baselines and achieves performance comparable to the vanilla setting, while requiring fewer critic tokens during feedback rounds. However, it introduces an initial overhead for extracting topics, which increases the overall token consumption. Qwen-2.5-32B-Instruct is used for extracting the topics.
Dataset
PerFine
PerFine+Knockout
PerFine+Knockout+Best-of-N
Yelp
2.29
3.69
5.68
Goodreads
2.62
4.17
6.65
Amazon
3.48
4.73
6.53
Appendix
Table 11: Per-query average wall-clock time (in seconds) for different refinement strategies.
LLM personalization adapts language models to users’ preferences, histories, expertise, and changing goals while balancing usefulness, privacy, and control.
The demand for personalized LLMs is shifting from style imitation toward content quality. We investigate whether self-distillation can bridge this gap in existing fine-tuning paradigm. To address this limitation, we introduce MIRROR(Meta- personalization by Internalizing Reference-Revealed On-policy Reflections), a novel self-distillation framework that shifts LLM personalization from imitation toward preference internalization. First, we replace reference-token imitation with reference-revealed on-policy self-distillation, aligning the model's next-token distributions along its own generation trajectories with those of its reference-conditioned self, thereby internalizing user preferences rather than reproducing reference wording.Second, we introduce MIRROR-F, a focal plug-in that augments on-policy distributional alignment with selective supervision over informative reference tokens, thereby strengthening content generation while preserving user-specific expression. Across three personalized generation benchmarks, two model scales, and complementary reference-based and LLM-based evaluations, MIRROR and MIRROR-F achieve leading overall personalization performance and superior text quality, while exhibiting less catastrophic forgetting than SFT-based baselines on three unseen personalized generation tasks. The gains are consistent across model scales and application scenarios, translating to improved performance in LLM personalization tasks.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable ability in generating personalized content by leveraging user histories and contextual cues. However, most existing personalization approaches rely on implicit representations within model parameters, making it difficult to interpret user-specific preferences or effectively handle long-context dependencies. To address these challenges, we propose PrefReward, a novel preference-aware generative framework that explicitly models user styles through a structured preference matrix and integrates it into the decoding process as a reward signal. PrefReward consists of two stages: (1) extracting a user-specific preference matrix that summarizes individual stylistic tendencies, and (2) using the matrix to guide generation via a KL-divergence-based reward function. Experiments on the LongLaMP dataset show that PrefReward outperforms non-personalized and retrieval-based baselines in both generation quality and personalization interpretability.
Yue Wu, Chengbing Wang, Yimeng Bai +3
University of Science and Technology of China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · National University of Singapore
Large language models (LLMs) are typically aligned with population-level preferences, despite substantial variation across individual users. We introduce POPI, a user-level personalization framework that separates the problem into two components connected by a natural-language interface: a shared inference model that distills heterogeneous user signals into a concise preference summary, and a shared generator that conditions on this summary to produce personalized responses. Both components are trained under a unified preference-optimization objective, with reinforcement learning handling the non-differentiable inference step. This objective decomposes into generator approximation error and summary informativeness, revealing how a single loss simultaneously drives accurate generation and informative summarization. Because the interface is natural language, learned summaries can be inferred once per user and reused across different generators -- including frozen, black-box commercial APIs. Across four personalization benchmarks, POPI generally improves personalization quality while reducing context overhead by up to an order of magnitude.
Yizhuo Chen, Xin Liu, Ruijie Wang +7
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Amazon · University of Notre Dame