As Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities advance, locally deployed personal agents relying on API-based remote models and external skills have emerged as a novel paradigm. With the rapid expansion of available skills, enabling personal agents to learn and adapt to implicit user preferences becomes a critical challenge. However, local deployment constraints preclude complex centralized selection algorithms, creating an urgent need for a lightweight local preference harness. This paper explores the implementation of such a harness through a novel architecture that strictly decouples statistical preference learning from semantic intent parsing. Specifically, we leverage localized statistical results to influence and modulate the selection decisions of the remote LLM. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that our decoupled approach achieves the lowest cumulative regret and highest test accuracy, significantly outperforming traditional memory-augmented agents.
As large language model (LLM) agents evolve into personalized companions, memory has emerged as a core capability. However, LLMs face a knowledge utilization problem: they may fail to act on relevant user preferences even when they are fully present in context. When an agent fails to tailor its response in a context where previously shared user preferences should matter, it is unclear whether the model failed to remember that information or remembered it but failed to use it. To isolate this breakdown, we introduce a decoupled evaluation paradigm that administers paired Know and Act tests to the same user preference. We conduct large-scale experiments across 16 systems and five memory architectures, evaluating 1,000 preferences embedded at three levels of expression strength. Our results show a large gap between Know and Act outcomes: agents often pass the recall test for a user preference but fail to reflect that same preference in the paired behavioral scenario. While memory architectures reduce this gap, utilization remains especially weak for health and therapy-related preferences, where failures to act carry the greatest real-world stakes.
Large language model (LLM) agents can retrieve memory, call tools, ask clarifying questions, and vary response style, yet adapting these execution decisions to an individual user remains difficult. Fine-tuning a separate LLM is costly or impossible for proprietary systems, while prompts and memory primarily expose user information to the agent rather than adapt its execution decisions from feedback. We formulate personalization of a frozen agent as online learning of a per-user execution policy from scalar feedback observed only for the executed action. We propose FABLE (Factorized Adaptive Bandit Layer for Execution), a lightweight policy layer outside a potentially black-box host agent. FABLE factorizes memory, information-acquisition, and response decisions so feedback updates related choices; filters actions through an externally specified feasible set before exploration; and learns user-specific residual preferences relative to a fixed default-and-cost score via Bayesian contextual Thompson sampling. Under a linear residual-reward model, a calibrated variant inherits an expected-regret bound against the best feasible action. We also characterize preferences unidentifiable under persistent feasibility constraints and provide anytime-valid false-promotion control. Across personalized-reasoning, controlled-feedback, and executable tool-use evaluations, FABLE improves several preference-sensitive behaviors relative to rule-only control while remaining competitive on end-to-end task performance.
Current approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) aggregate diverse human preferences into a single reward signal, effectively optimizing for a hypothetical ``average user'' who represents no real person particularly well. This position paper argues that LLMs should learn personalized, individual preferences rather than aggregated ones. We show that aggregation masks critical information about preference diversity, individual values, and contextual dependencies, which is a limitation both theoretically grounded in social choice theory and empirically evident across demographic groups. We analyze the rich structure that human preferences encode, survey technical approaches to personalization, and systematically address counterarguments on scalability, shared standards, and manipulation risk. While personalization introduces genuine safety challenges including filter bubbles, value lock-in, and psychological manipulation, we argue these are manageable through bounded personalization frameworks that preserve universal safety constraints while accommodating legitimate individual variation. We conclude with a concrete research and policy agenda for developing preference-aware models that respect both individual autonomy and collective safety.