Realizing personalized intelligence faces a core dilemma: sending user history to centralized large language models raises privacy concerns, while on-device small language models lack the reasoning capacity required for high-quality generation. Our pilot study shows that purely local enhancements remain insufficient to reliably bridge this gap. We therefore propose SpecSteer, an asymmetric collaborative inference framework that synergizes private on-device context with cloud-scale reasoning. SpecSteer casts collaboration as Bayesian knowledge fusion and repurposes speculative decoding as a distributed alignment protocol, yielding a Draft--Verify--Recover pipeline: the on-device model drafts personalized sequences; the cloud validates via a ratio-based mechanism that decouples reasoning verification from private context, filtering logical flaws without accessing raw user context; upon rejection, a steering recovery injects local intent during correction. Experiments demonstrate that SpecSteer successfully closes the reasoning gap and achieves superior personalized generation performance, while delivering a 2.36x speedup over standard baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The fundamental dilemma in personalized generation: the inevitable trade-off between the reasoning capability required for high-quality responses and the data isolation necessary for privacy protection.
Model
Method
LaMP-4
LaMP-5
LaMP-7
Abstract
Review
Writing
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
Qwen3
0.6B Direct
12.29
10.60
44.98
37.13
45.89
40.43
36.58
20.34
24.15
12.95
26.32
12.72
LoRA
13.14
11.23
47.74
40.50
46.20
40.44
33.01
20.52
22.22
13.34
14.20
10.45
RAG
12.14
9.96
48.03
40.09
46.09
40.34
39.89
21.65
23.18
12.84
25.50
12.36
LoRA + RAG
10.36
9.26
44.88
38.71
46.16
40.36
35.04
21.43
24.42
14.69
16.91
10.47
RAFT
8.23
7.52
37.98
32.86
46.36
40.58
39.98
21.86
22.00
12.45
26.90
12.87
Table 1: Empirical quantification of the Capacity Deficit. We compare mobile-scale SLMs equipped with varying knowledge enhancement strategies (LoRA, RAG, RAFT) against standard server-scale Generalists (32B) across six personalized generative tasks. Metrics are Rouge-1&L, the best results are marked in bold .
Figure 2: Intuitive illustration of SpecSteer . Standard speculative verification (A) may wrongly reject valid private entities (e.g., “Gino’s”) because the Generalist assigns them low absolute probability in the absence of private context. In contrast, SpecSteer (B) first performs ratio-based verification , normalizing the Generalist’s score by a generic baseline ( PSLM− ) to filter out surprise caused by missing private knowledge. Draft tokens that pass the ratio test are accepted directly, while failed cases are handled by steering recovery , which re-injects the Specialist’s personalized signal to recover the intended continuation without exposing private data.
Pair
Setting
Abs.
Rev.
Wri.
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
A
SLM
36.58
20.34
24.15
12.95
26.32
12.72
SLM+
39.89
21.65
23.18
12.84
25.50
12.36
LLM
40.18
22.17
31.18
14.78
29.46
12.64
SpecSteer
41.35
23.57
33.03
17.26
30.79
12.88
B
SLM
36.97
17.60
22.50
10.86
23.83
10.38
Table 2: Performance comparison on LongLaMP. SLM+ denotes the retrieval-augmented specialist.
Type
Method
Abs.
Rev.
Wri.
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
Ret.
BM25
39.89
21.65
23.18
12.84
25.50
12.36
BGE
40.13
21.76
25.35
13.08
23.48
12.06
PAG
38.17
20.14
25.58
13.65
28.20
12.10
Peft
TAM
36.70
20.40
23.95
12.20
27.84
12.29
OPPU
38.23
21.27
24.52
12.24
27.53
12.26
Table 3: Comparison with broader personalized generation baselines on LongLaMP under the representative Pair A setting. We report additional retrieval-based, PEFT-based, and alignment-based baselines beyond those in Table 2. Bold indicates the best results.
Method
Abstract
Review
Writing
Efficiency
R-1
R-L
α (%)
R-1
R-L
α (%)
R-1
R-L
α (%)
Speed
Speedup
Vanilla LLM
40.18
22.17
-
31.18
14.78
-
29.46
12.64
-
22.58
1.00 ×
CoSteer Lv et al. (2025)
41.98
24.61
-
32.73
15.93
-
31.26
13.38
-
9.71
0.43 ×
LightCoSteer Lv et al. (2025)
40.99
22.62
-
32.61
16.04
-
30.41
13.11
-
16.03
0.71 ×
Standard SD
39.90
22.23
35.52
31.24
15.03
29.02
29.08
12.41
39.65
22.13
0.98 ×
SpecSteer ( λ=0.5 )
41.35
23.57
56.36
33.03
17.26
53.28
30.79
12.88
57.19
39.29
1.74 ×
Table 4: Efficiency and quality trade-off analysis on the Qwen3-0.6B/32B pairing. Speed denotes the generation throughput (tokens/s), and Speedup is measured relative to the standalone LLM inference. α represents the average token acceptance rate. SpecSteer maintains high generation quality while achieving a 2.36× acceleration, whereas existing steering methods often lead to a net slowdown due to their persistent per-token computational overhead.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
LaMP-1
LaMP-2
LaMP-3
Acc ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
MAE ↓
RMSE ↓
Qwen3-0.6B
Direct Gen.
0.46
0.02
0.0119
1.67
2.1900
LoRA
0.45
0.85
0.1577
0.43
0.8775
RAG
0.48
0.62
0.1396
2.94
3.2100
LoRA + RAG
0.53
0.70
0.1121
0.49
0.9767
Appendix
Table 5: Performance Comparison of on LaMP 1-3. Indicators for LaMP-1 is Acc, LaMP-2 are Acc and F1, and LaMP-3 are MAE and RMSE.
Pair
Setting
Abs.
Rev.
Wri.
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
E
SLM
36.58
20.34
24.15
12.95
26.32
12.72
SLM+
33.01
20.52
22.22
13.34
14.20
10.45
LLM
40.18
22.17
31.18
14.78
29.46
12.64
SpecSteer
34.25
21.09
26.28
14.05
16.75
12.27
F
SLM
36.97
17.60
22.50
10.86
23.83
10.38
Appendix
Table 6: Performance Comparison across Different Settings (Best results in bold )
Setting
Abstract
Review
Writing
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
SLM
36.58
20.34
24.15
12.95
26.32
12.72
LLM
40.18
22.17
31.18
14.78
29.46
12.64
SLM+ (Noise)
37.07
21.12
23.54
12.58
24.99
12.03
SLM+ (BM25)
39.89
21.65
23.18
12.84
25.50
12.36
SLM+ (BGE)
40.13
21.76
25.35
13.08
23.48
12.06
Appendix
Table 7: Robustness of SpecSteer under different levels of Specialist noise on Qwen3-0.6B/32B.
Method
Abstract
Review
Writing
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
SLM
36.58
20.34
24.15
12.95
26.32
12.72
SLM+
39.89
21.65
23.18
12.84
25.50
12.36
LLM
39.04
21.23
31.71
15.08
27.84
12.41
SpecSteer
41.23
23.75
32.03
15.24
29.57
13.61
Appendix
Table 8: Cross-architecture deployment results using Qwen3-0.6B as the Specialist and Llama-3.1-8B as the Generalist.
Setting
Abstract
Review
Writing
R1
RL
R1
RL
R1
RL
SLM
36.58
20.34
24.15
12.95
26.32
12.72
SLM+
39.89
21.65
23.18
12.84
25.50
12.36
LLM
40.18
22.17
31.18
14.78
29.46
12.64
β=0.5
41.55
22.67
33.43
16.76
30.89
12.18
β=1.0
41.35
23.57
33.03
17.26
30.79
12.88
Appendix
Table 9: Impact of Steering Strength β on Qwen3-0.6B/32B.
Setting
Abstract
Review
Writing
Efficiency
R1
RL
α (%)
R1
RL
α (%)
R1
RL
α (%)
Speed
Speedup
λ=1.0
41.85
24.08
37.45
33.68
17.82
38.36
30.45
13.42
43.15
25.29
1.12x
λ=0.5
41.35
23.57
56.36
33.03
17.26
53.28
30.79
12.88
57.19
39.29
1.74x
λ=0.1
41.16
22.75
73.79
32.38
16.80
81.46
29.85
12.33
86.16
53.29
2.36x
λ=0.01
40.85
21.95
77.12
32.00
16.20
82.31
29.17
11.86
87.40
54.87
2.43x
Appendix
Table 10: Impact of Verification Threshold λ on Performance and Efficiency (Qwen3-0.6B/32B)
concat ([PPEP( P1 ), …, PPEP( Pn )], “, and ”). Following the given patterns [INPUT]
Lamp-7: Tweet Paraphrasing
“ Pi [text]”
concat ([PPEP( P1 ), …, PPEP( Pn )], “, and ”) are written by a person. Following the given patterns [INPUT]
Appendix
Table 13: Prompts template used to augment the input of the LM with the user profile. [INPUT] is the task’s input as shown in Table 12 .
Dataset
Profile Format
Generated Input ( xi )
Generated Output ( yi )
LaMP-1: Personalized Citation Identification
title: [title] abstract: [abstract]
Write an abstract for this title: [title]
[abstract]
LaMP-2: Personalized Movie Tagging
description: [description] tag: [tag]
Which tag does this movie relate to among the following tags? Just answer with the tag name without further explanation. tags: [sci-fi, based on a book, … true story] description: [description]
[tag]
LaMP-3: Personalized Product Rating
review: [review] score: [score]
What is the score of the following review on a scale of 1 to 5? just answer with 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 without further explanation. review: [review]
[score]
LaMP-4: Personalized News Headline Generation
article: [article] title: [title]
Generate a headline for the following article: [article]
[title]
LaMP-5: Personalized Scholarly Title Generation
abstract: [abstract] title: [title]
Generate a title for the following abstract of a paper: [abstract]
[title]
LaMP-7: Personalized Tweet Paraphrasing
tweet: [tweet]
Complete the following tweet: [first part of the tweet]
[second part of the tweet]
Appendix
Table 14: Implementation of the input-output generation function convert for PEFT personalization on LaMP and LongLaMP benchmarks.
Personalizing language models (LMs) to individual user preferences is essential for aligning responses with diverse goals and backgrounds. Existing methods typically train a separate adapter for each user or learn a reward model whose scores depend on the user. Despite explicitly optimizing for each user, these methods must learn from limited observations and therefore suffer from data sparsity and poor generalization to unseen users and domains. In-context learning (ICL) and Context Steering (CoS) can instead provide more effective personalization by conditioning the base LM directly on user context and leveraging its pretrained capabilities without per-user training. Yet neither adapts the influence of that context across decoding steps: ICL leaves it uncontrolled, whereas CoS applies a fixed steering coefficient and requires two LM forward passes per step. We propose Cautious Context Steering (CCS), which adds a lightweight adapter to a frozen backbone LM to decide at each token whether and how strongly user context should affect generation. The adapter learns this behavior from an oracle context-conditioned LM and preserves the base LM when the context is not helpful. A single CCS adapter trained on only one dataset improves generation quality both in-domain and across four out-of-distribution personalization benchmarks, demonstrating robust generalization to new users and domains. CCS also avoids per-user fine-tuning and the additional context-conditioned forward pass required by CoS, substantially reducing inference cost.
Gihoon Kim, Jeyoung Lee, Suhan Woo +4
Yonsei University · Hyundai Motors Company · Korea Institute of Science and Technology
With the rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs), there is an increasing demand for effective personalization techniques that can adapt model behavior to individual user preferences. Personalized LLMs must infer a user's query-dependent preferences from limited, heterogeneous, and evolving interaction histories. Existing approaches rely primarily on in-context personalization, parametric adaptation, or personalized reward modeling, but respectively incur recurring costs in context management, model optimization and deployment, or multi-candidate generation and scoring. These limitations become particularly restrictive when user observations are sparse and the preference evidence relevant to each query varies across contexts and over time. To address these challenges, we propose \modelname, a fine-grained and instance-tailored steering framework that dynamically generates sample-level interference vectors from user data and injects them into the model's forward pass for personalized adaptation. Our approach introduces: match contrast that produces user-relevant signals, fine-grained steering component that captures nuanced signals by hooking activations from attention and MLP layers, and query-conditioned aggregation module that synthesizes these signals into contextually relevant enhancements. Extensive experiments across diverse scenarios, including short-to-long text generation, and web function calling, validate the effectiveness and compatibility of \modelname. Results show that our method consistently brings significant performance gains, and show extreme superiority in fast-shifting and data-sparse environments. Additionally, \modelname rids us of training cycles and incurs light overhead of storage or inference latency. These make \modelname a strong and real-world deployable method. Implementation is available \footnote{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/FleetPilot}.
Kounianhua Du, Jianxing Liu, Kangning Zhang +7
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Xiaohongshu Inc., Shanghai, China
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