Rating the Pitch, Not the Product: User Evaluations of LLMs Reflect Expectations More Than Performance

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $ρ= 0.04$ (57% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($ρ= 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation. We ask whether the polarity of prior conversation history biases subsequent judgments, an effect we call the accumulated message effect on LLM judgments (AMEL). Across 84,088 API calls to 12 models from 5 providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek, and four open-source models), we present identical test items in isolation or following histories saturated with predominantly positive or negative evaluations. Models shift toward the conversation's prevailing polarity (d = -0.17, p < 10^-53). The effect concentrates on items where the model is genuinely uncertain at baseline (d = -0.36 for high-entropy items, vs d = -0.15 when the baseline is deterministic). Bias does not grow with context length: 5 prior turns and 50 produce the same shift (Spearman |r| < 0.01; OLS slope p = 0.80). And there is a negativity asymmetry: paired per item, negative histories induce 1.52x more bias than positive (t = 13.03, p < 10^-36, n = 2,733). Scaling helps but does not solve it (Anthropic: Haiku -0.22 to Opus -0.17; OpenAI: Nano -0.34 to GPT-5.2 -0.17). Three follow-ups narrow the mechanism. The token probability distribution shifts continuously, not at a threshold. The negativity asymmetry has both token-level and semantic components, though attributing the balance is exploratory at our sample sizes. Position does not matter: five biased turns anywhere in a 50-turn history produce the same shift. The simplest fix for evaluation pipelines is a fresh context per item; when batching is unavoidable, balancing the history helps.