A Controlled Audit of Personal AI Memory for Rating Prediction

Memory enables language model assistants to maintain continuity across sessions and generate personalized responses, but knowing more about a user does not necessarily produce responses they prefer. Existing evaluations assess memory capabilities without directly establishing whether memory use benefits the user. To study this gap, we collect approximately 1,000 pairwise judgments from 87 participants using their own ChatGPT queries and personal memories. We find that memory-conditioned responses are not consistently preferred over responses generated without memory and in some cases, users strongly prefer the latter. Automatic evaluators also show limited agreement with users and favor memory-conditioned responses substantially more often than users do. Motivated by these gaps, we introduce a memory-aware reward model that learns from user judgments, achieving 72.8% preference prediction accuracy and outperforming the existing baselines. Our findings motivate evaluation and optimization objectives that align memory use with the preferences of the people whose information is being used.

As AI systems evolve into personalized digital companions, a central capability is reasoning over a user's long-term personal history: not merely storing past events, but tracking longitudinal experiences and evolving preferences. Progress here is bottlenecked by evaluation, existing long-term memory benchmarks are largely synthetic and text-only, they overlook the visual records that anchor everyday human memory, lack the authentic and causally connected longitudinal data that real personalization demands, and consequently remain confined to shallow factual recall. We introduce ReaLMem (Real-world Long-term Multimodal Memory), the first benchmark built from authentic multi-year personal visual archives, paired with first-person subjective annotations. ReaLMem evaluates models across three cognitive tiers of increasing difficulty: factual recall, persona inference, and predictive personalization. We further propose ChronoProfiler, a temporal-weighting profiling module that computes temporal stability scores for user attributes and applies them as a salience prior, resolving conflicts among temporally inconsistent preferences and helping models compound multiple co-active preferences in complex personalized decisions. Extensive evaluation of frontier multimodal large language models (MLLMs) and memory systems on ReaLMem reveals predictive personalization as a consistent ceiling, exposes clear performance gaps and bottlenecks between MLLMs and memory systems, and shows that high-quality, temporally informed representations substantially improve personalization. Together, ReaLMem and ChronoProfiler provide an authentic testbed and a simple, effective mechanism for long-term personalization, laying a foundation for future research on lifelong AI companions.

Large language model (LLM) evaluators are increasingly used to assess personalized assistants, yet whether they can reliably judge personalization has rarely been tested. We introduce PersEvalBench, a benchmark testing whether an evaluator can recognize appropriate and inappropriate uses of user history. It contains 403 multi-episode scenarios where user information should persist, transfer, or cease to apply. The benchmark covers nine controlled error subtypes across three families: under-personalization, over-personalization, and misapplied-state errors. Human audits confirm that generated errors match their intended types and that the prescribed uses of user information are reasonable. Across five LLM evaluators, recognition of controlled personalization errors remains limited even with the full dialogue history. On the human-evaluated subset, under-personalization shows the largest gap: humans recognize 94.4% of these errors, compared with 63.9% for the strongest reported evaluator. Evaluators often recognize that a response is problematic but reverse the error direction, mistaking failure to follow an applicable preference (UNDER) for use of an inapplicable preference (OVER). Easier evidence access offers little help: highlighting the relevant history turns raises error recognition only slightly, suggesting that the remaining difficulty lies in judging what role that information should play in the response.