PersonaFactor: Preference Factors with Dynamic Selection for LLM Personalization
Organizations: East China Normal University · Beijing Zhongguancun Academy · Renmin University of China · Southeast University
Abstract
Although users may express different personalization needs across tasks, these task-specific behaviors can reflect shared underlying preference mechanisms. Existing LLM personalization methods often focus on surface-level interactions or undifferentiated histories, overlooking the shared mechanisms underlying these behaviors. We introduce PersonaFactors, a framework that distills reusable and interpretable personalization factors from heterogeneous user interactions. We construct a library of thirteen PersonaFactors by extracting evidence-grounded rationales and clustering recurring patterns across tasks, and develop a dynamic factor-guided generation framework that selects factors relevant to each user's history and current request. Across four personalization benchmarks and four backbone models, Dynamic PersonaFactor achieves the best score on every reported metric. Representation analyses further show that PersonaFactors and user history induce partially overlapping low-dimensional representations, and that their joint use yields complementary shifts. Taken together, these findings suggest that factor-based and history-based personalization can mutually reinforce each other.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | PersonaFactor |
|---|---|
| Cognitive and Knowledge Alignment | Cognitive Trust; Schema Congruence; Cognitive Consistency; Cognitive Load |
| Context and Goal Adaptation | Situational Anchoring; Goal Congruence; Constraint Consistency |
| Self and Identity Congruence | Self-Concept Congruence; Identity Belonging; Value Identification |
| Behavioral and Expressive Style Consistency | Behavioral Pattern Consistency; Expressive Style Consistency; Perceived Autonomy Control |
| Model | Method | LaMP | LongLaMP | LaMP-QA | PersonalLLM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-1 | R-L | R-1 | R-L | LLM Judge | Reward Model | ||
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Direct | 0.2932 | 0.2580 | 0.2125 | 0.1242 | 0.4915 | -0.9013 |
| RAG | 0.3400 | 0.3004 | 0.3003 | 0.1538 | 0.6503 | 0.4049 | |
| RAG-SelfFactor | 0.3325 | 0.2904 | 0.2891 | 0.1561 | 0.5940 | -0.3861 | |
| RAG-CoPA | 0.3456 | 0.3062 | 0.3082 | 0.1565 | 0.7196 | 0.4642 | |
| Static PersonaFactor | 0.3495 | 0.3076 | 0.3141 | 0.1581 | 0.7418 | 0.4795 | |
| Selector | Art & Entertainment | Lifestyle & Personal Development | Society & Culture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic PersonaFactor | 0.3570 | 0.4542 | 0.5139 |
| -only | 0.3457 | 0.4502 | 0.5099 |
| -only | 0.3312 | 0.4427 | 0.5023 |
| Random- | 0.3396 | 0.4398 | 0.5056 |
Appendix figures & tables29 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Type | Component | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Input | Current task Write a personalized review of a Hamilton Beach two-slice toaster, given a 5.0 rating and the summary “A great general-purpose toaster with extra perqs for bagel lovers” . User history Prior reviews describe upgrading from inexpensive cookware to professional kitchen equipment and emphasize even heating, durability, and appearance: “I never realized how much of a difference REAL kitchen gear makes ” Other reviews value precise measurements, strong motor performance, absorbency, softness, and product design . Answer “To be candid, I haven’t owned or regularly used a toaster in about twenty years It’s a sturdy design with a nice-looking, soft-industrial aesthetic Once I know what settings work for the things I toast, I never have to guess again the ‘bagel’ specialty function is quite welcome, as is the ‘defrost’ function Auto-shutoff prevents burning in case of jams .” | |
| Output | Rationale 1 Reason: Matches user’s upgrade mindset. Theory: Cognitive Consistency Theory. Explanation: The user consistently reviews products where they acknowledge upgrading from basic/budget items to quality gear (cookware, towels, mixer). The answer mirrors this pattern by admitting past lack of toaster use and praising the upgrade to modern features. Rationale 2 Reason: Aligns with practical value focus. Theory: Utilitarian Value Perception. Explanation: User history shows appreciation for functional improvements (even cooking, precise measurements, absorbent towels). The answer highlights practical benefits like auto-shutoff, defrost function, and consistent toasting results. Rationale 3 Reason: Reflects aesthetic appreciation. Theory: Aesthetic-Usability Effect. Explanation: User frequently mentions product appearance (handsome cookware, attractive mixer, good-looking towels). The answer notes the ‘soft-industrial aesthetic’ and how it looks great in the kitchen. | |
| Type | Component | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Input | Current task “Paraphrase the following tweet without any explanation before or after it: @morphiine, it’s amusing that you label ohfukk.com as a new venture when it’s simply for entertainment.” User history “@purelynarcotic Ohh.. #twpp is falling silent.. I was waiting to track ur US version.. Next time maybe.. Btw sunny california sounds good”; “@morphiine kya karen yaar.. so many clothes here and there.. ”; “Ohh the gprs is not so constant on this highway..” . Answer “@morphiine U call ohfukk.com as a new venture :p Thts funny.. Its just fun” | |
| Output | Rationale 1 Reason: Matches user’s casual tone. Theory: Tone Congruence Theory. Explanation: The user’s history shows informal, conversational language with emojis and abbreviations (e.g., ‘Btw’, ‘kya karen yaar’). The answer mirrors this style with ‘:p’ and ‘Thats funny’, aligning with the user’s communication preferences. Rationale 2 Reason: Reflects user’s humor style. Theory: Humor Alignment Principle. Explanation: The user frequently uses lighthearted expressions (e.g., ‘Ohh..’, ‘Ohh the gprs’). The answer’s playful tone (‘U call’, ‘just fun’) resonates with the user’s established humor pattern. | |
| Dimension | PersonaFactor | Definition |
| Cognitive and Knowledge Alignment | Cognitive Trust | Whether generated content uses sources, evidence, reasoning, and explanatory structures the user is likely to trust. |
| Schema Congruence | Whether generated content fits the user’s knowledge background, familiar concepts, experience, and ways of understanding. | |
| Cognitive Consistency | Whether generated content respects judgments, preferences, beliefs, or concerns shown in the user’s history. | |
| Cognitive Load | Whether complexity, structural density, and explanatory style fit the user’s likely processing capacity. | |
| Context and Goal Adaptation | Situational Anchoring | Whether generated content incorporates the concrete situation, task background, purpose, role context, and possible emotional state. |
| Goal Congruence | Whether generated content serves the user’s current problem, goal, or intended next action. |
| Query | History | Dynamically selected factors | Model answer |
| Generate a headline for the following article: Here’s an illustrator you and your awesome third grade neighbor can both appreciate. Andrew Ho’s colorful portrayals of the | 1. A Retired Elementary School Teacher Turned Her Home Into A Folksy Fine Art Mecca: 2. This Queer, Immigrant Illustrator Starts Every Morning With A Work Of Activist Art: 3. Artists Are Offering Free Drawings In Exchange For ACLU Donations: | Expressive Style Consistency; Cognitive Consistency; Goal Congruence; Situational Anchoring. | {“headlines”: “This Illustrator’s Colorful Work Charms Both You and Your Third Grade Neighbor”} |
| Query | History | Dynamically selected factors | Model answer |
| Do I have to cite my own paper? | 4. Is there a text out there which introduces philosophy via thought experiment rather than throwing big terms at you right from the beginning. 7. But sometimes healers leave the queen and follow BK or giants, and that sucks. 8. Why don’t Kilgrave’s commands affect Kilgrave himself? | Schema Congruence; Cognitive Trust; Situational Anchoring. | Think of it like this: you’re building a house. The bricks you made earlier (your past paper) are now part of the new wall you’re constructing (your current paper). creating a clear, traceable path for your reader So, yes, you must cite your own paper whenever you use its content |
| Query | History | Dynamically selected factors | Model answer |
| Generate an abstract for the title “DESA: Disparity Estimation With Surface Awareness” using the following items: depth map, depth estimation, normal restriction, 2D aggregation, benchmark performance | 1. In this paper, we first present a depth extraction method based on sampling of the space at camera viewpoints to address the interference problem. 2. Experiments show that the proposed method saves up to 76% coding time with negligible PSNR loss and bit rate overhead. | Cognitive Trust; Schema Congruence; Goal Congruence. | We propose DESA, a disparity estimation method with surface awareness that integrates normal restriction into a 2D aggregation framework to enhance depth estimation accuracy. |
| Query | History | Dynamically selected factors | Model answer |
| When did the First Fleet land in Australia? | 1. What is the history of mukluks? How are they traditionally made? Liked response: History: Traditional construction: 3. Can you describe the differences between autotrophs and heterotrophs? Liked response: 1. Autotrophs: 2. Heterotrophs: | Situational Anchoring; Cognitive Trust; Cognitive Load. | The First Fleet, a convoy of 11 ships carrying convicts, marines, and officials from Great Britain, landed in Australia in January 1788. Here is a detailed, step-by-step breakdown of the event and its historical context: |
| Benchmark | Scene | Samples | Metric |
| LaMP | Personalized News Headline Generation | 1,925 | ROUGE-1/L |
| Personalized Scholarly Title Generation | 2,500 | ||
| Personalized Tweet Paraphrasing | 1,500 | ||
| LongLaMP | Personalized Abstract Generation | 4,560 | ROUGE-1/L |
| Personalized Product Review Generation | 1,826 | ||
| Personalized Topic Generation | 2,452 |
| Model | Method | News Headline Generation | Scholarly Title Generation | Tweet Paraphrasing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-1 | R-L | R-1 | R-L | R-1 | R-L | ||
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Direct | 0.1273 | 0.1162 | 0.4332 | 0.3786 | 0.3191 | 0.2792 |
| RAG | 0.1704 | 0.1505 | 0.4774 | 0.4211 | 0.3721 | 0.3295 | |
| RAG-SelfFactor | 0.1654 | 0.1443 | 0.4324 | 0.3799 | 0.3998 | 0.3471 | |
| RAG-CoPA | 0.1696 | 0.1509 | 0.4773 | 0.4246 | 0.3899 | 0.3432 | |
| Static PersonaFactor | 0.1712 | 0.1515 | 0.4769 | 0.4203 | 0.4003 | 0.3509 | |
| Model | Method | Abstract Generation | Product Review Generation | Topic Generation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-1 | R-L | R-1 | R-L | R-1 | R-L | ||
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Direct | 0.3040 | 0.1871 | 0.1408 | 0.0866 | 0.1926 | 0.0988 |
| RAG | 0.3446 | 0.1978 | 0.2929 | 0.1406 | 0.2635 | 0.1229 | |
| RAG-SelfFactor | 0.3772 | 0.2178 | 0.3090 | 0.1508 | 0.1811 | 0.0998 | |
| RAG-CoPA | 0.3560 | 0.2022 | 0.3015 | 0.1426 | 0.2670 | 0.1248 | |
| Static PersonaFactor | 0.3613 | 0.2039 | 0.3124 | 0.1449 | 0.2685 | 0.1254 | |
| Model | Method | Art & [-1pt] Entertainment | Lifestyle & [-1pt] Personal [-1pt] Development | Society & [-1pt] Culture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Direct | 0.3764 | 0.4972 | 0.6009 |
| RAG | 0.5306 | 0.6482 | 0.7720 | |
| RAG-SelfFactor | 0.5254 | 0.5983 | 0.6583 | |
| RAG-CoPA | 0.5886 | 0.7519 | 0.8182 | |
| Static PersonaFactor | 0.6027 | 0.7817 | 0.8409 | |
| Dynamic PersonaFactor | 0.6158 | 0.7970 | 0.8597 |
| Model | Method | PersonalLLM |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V4-Pro | Direct | -0.9013 |
| RAG | 0.4049 | |
| RAG-SelfFactor | -0.3861 | |
| RAG-CoPA | 0.4642 | |
| Static PersonaFactor | 0.4795 | |
| Dynamic PersonaFactor | 0.4915 |
| Model | Factor Selection | LaMP | LongLaMP | LaMP-QA | PersonalLLM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-1 | R-L | R-1 | R-L | LLM Judge | Reward Model | ||
| Qwen3-8B | Prompt-based selector | 0.3199 | 0.2801 | 0.2612 | 0.1487 | 0.4028 | -0.3255 |
| Score-based selector | 0.3336 | 0.2956 | 0.3377 | 0.1859 | 0.4417 | -0.1722 | |
| Gemma-3-4B | Prompt-based selector | 0.2711 | 0.2378 | 0.2298 | 0.1299 | 0.4672 | -0.2772 |
| Score-based selector | 0.2818 | 0.2490 | 0.2943 | 0.1651 | 0.5107 | -0.1836 | |
| Selector | Art & Entertainment | Lifestyle & Personal Development | Society & Culture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic PersonaFactor | 0.4121 | 0.5358 | 0.5842 |
| -only | 0.3977 | 0.5086 | 0.5727 |
| -only | 0.4021 | 0.5198 | 0.5653 |
| Random- | 0.4065 | 0.5156 | 0.5688 |
| Model | Dataset | Task | Top-3 overlap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3-8B | LaMP | News headline generation | 0.180 |
| Scholarly title generation | 0.181 | ||
| Tweet paraphrasing | 0.293 | ||
| LongLaMP | Abstract generation | 0.272 | |
| Product review | 0.232 | ||
| Topic writing | 0.257 |
| Model | Dataset | Task | Full-layer mean | Middle-to-late-layer mean |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3-8B | LaMP | News headline generation | 0.352 | 0.333 |
| Scholarly title generation | 0.437 | 0.434 | ||
| Tweet paraphrasing | 0.395 | 0.368 | ||
| LongLaMP | Abstract generation | 0.380 | 0.356 | |
| Product review | 0.419 | 0.399 | ||
| Topic writing | 0.437 | 0.428 |
LLM Personalization
LLM personalization adapts language models to users’ preferences, histories, expertise, and changing goals while balancing usefulness, privacy, and control.
See all 130 papers