Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by end users, yet existing personalization methods relying on static profiles or text-only signals fail to capture query-specific expertise variation. We present ExPerT, a query-wise personalization framework that adapts LLM responses to users' query domain expertise by combining semantic and behavioral cues. ExPerT consists of two key components: (i) a semantic-behavioral expertise inference module that jointly interprets query text and keystroke dynamics via in-context LLM prompting, and (ii) an expertise-conditioned response generation that adapts the level of detail, terminology, and conceptual complexity. Our user study with 40 participants and 1270 queries demonstrated that ExPerT reduced expertise inference error by 65.7% compared to the strongest baseline (MAE = 0.398 vs. 1.162) and improved response satisfaction by 17.52% (from 3.71 to 4.36) on a 5-point Likert scale.
Persona prompting is widely used to steer large language models, yet its practical value remains unclear. Prior work often evaluates persona prompting using aggregate scores, making it difficult to determine whether expert-role prompting consistently improves response quality or instead changes responses along different quality dimensions. We study this question through a controlled comparison of four prompting conditions across 1,140 open-ended questions spanning 38 expert roles and six domains: no role prompt, a generic domain-expert prompt, embedding-based role retrieval, and a hybrid retrieval method combining embedding search with LLM-based role selection. Aggregate results show only small overall differences between conditions. However, metric-level analysis reveals a consistent tradeoff that aggregate averages obscure: role prompting systematically increases expertise depth while reducing clarity. These effects are highly conditional rather than universal. Role prompting performs best on advisory questions and in domains such as medicine and psychology, where structured expert framing and risk communication are intrinsically valuable. In contrast, baseline prompting performs better on conceptual and explanatory questions in finance, legal, science, and technology domains, where concise plain-language explanation is more important. We further show that hybrid retrieval significantly improves over embedding-only role selection, although better role retrieval does not eliminate the broader expertise-depth versus clarity tradeoff. Overall, our findings suggest that persona prompting primarily reshapes response characteristics rather than broadly improving capability, and that multi-metric evaluation is necessary for understanding its effects.
Large Language Models (LLMs) can exhibit diverse personas, and activating expert personas has been shown to improve domain expertise and task accuracy. However, existing persona control methods often suffer from cross-domain coupling, which may lead to overly aggressive behavior in high-caution domains such as healthcare, or excessive conservatism in risk-sensitive domains such as financial trading. To address this issue, we propose FOCUS (\textbf{\underline{F}}ine-tuning with \textbf{\underline{O}}rthogonal \textbf{\underline{C}}ontrol for \textbf{\underline{U}}ncoupled persona\textbf{\underline{S}}). FOCUS first automatically extracts expert persona vectors from LLMs, then applies orthogonal decomposition to decouple domain-specific expert personas, and finally introduces an expert gating module to adaptively control persona activation according to task contexts. With a two-stage training strategy and a gated selection regularizer, the model learns to activate appropriate personas for both single-domain and cross-domain tasks. Experiments on financial, legal, medical, and cross-domain benchmarks show that FOCUS improves task accuracy and outperforms existing persona control methods. Our code is available at \href{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/openpersona-48F4}{this url}.
Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data. It remains unclear how well current personalization systems work for real users. In this paper, we study the gap in LLM personalization performance when using synthetic versus human data. We collect human conversations (550 conversations) and judgments across three stages of personalization: extracting user attributes from conversations (5,949 judgments), pairing relevant attributes with new prompts (11,919), and incorporating relevant attributes into a personalized response (1,101). Incorporating human data reveals system limitations at each stage. Models struggle to extract attributes from human conversations, disagree with human judgments on relevant attributes, and generate personalized responses that humans judge no better than generic responses (though that LLM judges widely rate as better). We introduce two lightweight training-based interventions that shift automated personalization evaluation closer to human data in our first two stages. However, in our third stage we find that learned reward models achieve only modest correlation with human ratings, suggesting that human-aligned personalization quality judgments are difficult to model directly. Our collected data provides a foundation for studying how models should extract, select, and incorporate user information in ways that humans find useful.