Theory-Grounded Evaluation Exposes the Authorship Gap in LLM Personalization

With the surge of large language models (LLMs) and their ability to produce customized output, style-personalized text generation--"write like me"--has become a rapidly growing area of interest. However, style personalization is highly specific, relative to every user, and depends strongly on the pragmatic context, which makes it uniquely challenging. Although prior research has introduced benchmarks and metrics for this area, they tend to be non-standardized and have known limitations (e.g., poor correlation with human subjects). LLMs have been found to not capture author-specific style well, it follows that the metrics themselves must be scrutinized carefully. In this work we critically examine the effectiveness of the most common metrics used in the field, such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLMs-as-judges. We evaluate these metrics using our proposed style discrimination benchmark, which spans eight diverse writing tasks across three evaluation settings: domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized vs non-personalized discrimination. We find strong evidence that employing ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics consistently outperforms single-evaluator methods, and conclude by providing guidance on how to reliably assess style-personalized text generation.

Computational stylometry studies writing style through quantitative textual patterns, enabling applications such as authorship attribution, identity linking, and plagiarism detection. Despite the relevance of language modeling to these tasks, the pre-training of modern large language models (LLMs) has been underutilized in authorship attribution and verification. We introduce an unsupervised framework that uses the log-probabilities of an LLM to measure style transferability between two texts. This framework takes advantage of the extensive Causal Language Modeling (CLM) pre-training, one-shot capabilities and scale of LLMs, avoiding explicit supervision. Our methods substantially outperform prompting-based unsupervised baselines in authorship verification at similar model sizes, and is competitive with or improves contrastive baselines in most settings with sufficient model scale. We further observe strong performance across non-English languages. The effectiveness of the proposed framework improves consistently with increasing model scale. In the case of authorship verification, we propose an additional mechanism that increases test-time computation to improve accuracy; enabling flexible trade-offs between computational cost and task performance.

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.