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.
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 Models have enabled increasingly capable autonomous agents, yet personalization remains critical for making such agents practically useful. Recent benchmarks have begun evaluating personalization in agents, but they largely rely on static preference snapshots, fixed interaction logs, or question answering over predefined user profiles. Such designs fail to capture the complexity of evolving user preferences and neglect preference-conditioned task execution-a discrepancy we term as the knowledge-to-action gap. To address this challenge, we introduce IBA-Bench, a benchmark for implicit behavioral alignment constructed from longitudinal interaction histories that contain noise, implicit cues, and temporal inconsistencies. Unlike prior work, IBA-Bench evaluates whether an agent can execute tasks while satisfying implicit user constraints inferred from historical interactions. We further propose IBA-Agent, an agent framework that reconciles conflicting priorities through broad retrieval and trajectory-level alignment. Experiment results on IBA-Bench show that effective personalization remains a significant challenge for state-of-the-art LLM agents, and the proposed IBA-Agent substantially improves behavioral alignment in complex scenarios across nine application domains.
LLM-powered agents struggle with personalization when users issue raw, underspecified queries. In this setting, agents must infer latent intent, extract preferences from noisy interaction histories, and select among competing alternatives. Existing benchmarks rarely test this capability, as they often rely on user-refined queries or simplified histories. We introduce personalized product search (PPS), a testbed for agentic personalization under raw queries and diverse histories. We construct Agent Personalized Benchmark (APeB) from action logs, pairing underspecified intents with rich histories and user-viewed candidate items. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs with multi-step agent workflows, we find that models handle explicit queries well but struggle with early-stage queries requiring intent and preference discovery. Rubric analysis attributes this gap mainly to ineffective history use. A simple history-aware query-refinement pipeline, VQRA, yields consistent gains, highlighting the need for dedicated history-utilization modules in personalized agents.