As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve into lifelong AI assistants, LLM personalization has become a critical frontier. However, progress is currently bottlenecked by the absence of a gold-standard evaluation benchmark. Existing benchmarks either overlook personalized information management that is critical for personalization or rely heavily on synthetic dialogues, which exhibit an inherent distribution gap from real-world dialogue. To bridge this gap, we introduce AlpsBench, An LLM PerSonalization benchmark derived from real-world human-LLM dialogues. AlpsBench comprises 2,500 long-term interaction sequences curated from WildChat, paired with human-verified structured memories that encapsulate both explicit and implicit personalization signals. We define four pivotal tasks - personalized information extraction, updating, retrieval, and utilization - and establish protocols to evaluate the entire lifecycle of memory management. Our benchmarking of frontier LLMs and memory-centric systems reveals that: (i) models struggle to reliably extract latent user traits; (ii) memory updating faces a performance ceiling even in the strongest models; (iii) retrieval accuracy declines sharply in the presence of large distractor pools; and (iv) while explicit memory mechanisms improve recall, they do not inherently guarantee more preference-aligned or emotionally resonant responses. AlpsBench aims to provide a comprehensive framework.
Figures & tables
Benchmark
Real
T1
T2
T3
T4: Utilization Dimensions
Ext.
Upd.
Retr.
PA
PF
VRA
CF
EI
LaMP
●
○
○
○
◐
◐
○
○
○
PersonalLLM
○
○
○
○
◐
●
○
○
○
EQ-Bench
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
●
PersoBench
○
○
○
○
●
●
○
●
○
PersonaFeedback
○
○
○
○
●
●
○
●
○
Table 1. Comparison between AlpsBench and existing LLM personalization benchmarks. “Real” denotes whether the benchmark is built upon real-world data. Columns “T1” to “T4” represent whether the benchmarks contain corresponding testing dimensions.
Figure 1. Comparison between synthesized and real data. Examples contrasting synthesized and real dialogue data, emphasizing that real data contains more diverse and implicit personalization signals.
Figure 2. Examples of the synthesized and the real-world human expressions. Side-by-side examples showing that synthesized expressions tend to be explicit, while real-world human expressions are more indirect and context-dependent.
Figure 3. The evaluation tasks of AlpsBench.
Figure 4. The four-step benchmark construction pipeline based on real human–LLM dialogues.
Figure 5. Alignment between the LLM-based judge and human experts across four tasks. Comparison of full, partial, and non-alignment rates between the LLM-based judge and human experts for the four AlpsBench tasks.
Model
Task 1 Extraction
Task 2 Update
Task 3 Retrieval
Task 4 Utilization
Number of Distractor Memories
PA
PF
VRA
CF
EI
100
300
500
700
1000
Gen.
Int.
EN
CN
GPT-5.2
0.6720
0.7793
0.9519
0.9400
0.9249
0.9138
0.8945
0.5684
0.7043
0.7680
0.6640
0.9083
3.42
3.90
GPT-4.1-mini
0.5373
0.6214
0.9110
0.8578
0.8134
0.8010
0.7700
0.4112
0.5012
0.5240
0.2600
0.7896
2.79
2.92
DeepSeek-v3.2
0.6742
0.7543
0.9728
0.9687
0.9606
0.9333
0.9495
0.5912
0.6499
0.6120
0.3540
0.9419
3.66
4.00
Gemini-3 Flash
0.6487
0.7686
0.9642
0.9585
0.9484
0.9427
0.9440
0.6889
0.7524
0.7052
0.3000
0.8328
3.49
3.58
Table 2. Tasks 1–4. Experimental evaluation results of general-purpose LLMs.
Figure 6. Task 1. Direct and indirect memory extraction recall across evaluated models. Bar chart showing that direct-memory recall is generally higher than indirect-memory recall across the evaluated models.
GPT-4.1 -mini
Ever- MemOS
A-Mem
MemOS no-dial
Mem0
Mem0g
MemOS
LightMem
Precision
0.3044
0.0500
0.1370
0.2850
0.4460
0.4010
0.3260
0.1200
Recall
0.3581
0.9340
0.8830
0.8500
0.6920
0.7230
0.8240
0.8120
F1
0.2970
0.0900
0.2250
0.3890
0.4570
0.4460
0.4330
0.1850
Table 3. Task 1. Extracted information matching results of memory-oriented systems.
Figure 7. Task 3. Heatmap of retrieval scores across evaluated models as the number of distractor memories increases.
Method
PA
PF
VRA
CF
EI
Gen.
Int.
EN
CN
GPT-4.1-mini
0.4112
0.5012
0.5240
0.2600
0.7896
2.79
2.87
Grd. Mem.
-
-
-
-
-
3.21
3.33
MemoryOS
0.3895
0.5195
0.5458
0.1460
0.7872
2.23
2.26
A-Mem
0.2895
0.5422
0.4303
0.2240
0.8497
1.98
1.95
EverMemOS
0.7246
0.7888
0.6494
0.1667
0.7265
2.68
2.73
Table 4. Task 4. Utilization performance comparison of memory-oriented systems.