Always-on virtual assistants increasingly personalize on-device to new user-specific commands via few-shot fine-tuning (e.g., LoRA), but this adaptation is evaluated almost exclusively on whether it learns the new commands, not on whether the assistant can still recognize an input that matches none of its intents - the out-of-scope (OOS) rejection problem. We show that naive few-shot LoRA personalization degrades OOS-rejection AUROC (area under the ROC curve) on every one of five public intent-classification benchmarks (mean drop 0.055--0.258, five seeds each), while in-scope accuracy is preserved. A scorer-invariant check shows part of this drop is an artifact of the standard confidence scorer's own miscalibration under adaptation, though a smaller, genuine effect remains under any scorer; we trace it to a measurable shrinkage of the embedding margin around known-intent regions (pooled Spearman rho=0.61$). A deployment-cheap fix is scoring rejection by Mahalanobis distance instead of softmax confidence without extra training/retraining recovers most of the lost quality on 3 of 5 datasets at no accuracy cost, beats two further OOD scoring baselines, and generalizes across shot count, LoRA rank, and a second base encoder. We report honestly where the fix falls short and release all code for reproducibility.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Naive few-shot LoRA personalization degrades OOS-rejection AUROC on every one of 5 intent benchmarks (mean over 5 seeds), while in-scope accuracy is preserved.
Fig. 2: Out-of-scope rejection AUROC before and after naive few-shot LoRA personalization, mean ± std over 5 seeds. Every dataset drops; the 95% confidence interval on the drop excludes zero in every case (Table I ).
Fig. 3: Embedding-margin shift (Mahalanobis distance from known-class centroids to out-of-scope points, minus intra-class distance, before minus after personalization) versus OOS-rejection AUROC drop, one point per (dataset, seed). Pooled Spearman ρ=0.61 ( p=0.0012 , n=25 ).
Dataset
Margin shift (Mahalanobis)
Spearman ρ (Mahalanobis)
Spearman ρ (cosine)
CLINC150
2063.7 ± 163.3
0.60 ( p =0.28, n =5)
0.70 ( p =0.19)
Banking77
466.0 ± 87.1
-0.10 ( p =0.87, n =5)
0.50 ( p =0.39)
HWU64
641.8 ± 92.1
0.40 ( p =0.50, n =5)
0.90 ( p =0.04)
SNIPS
4820.1 ± 2455.3
0.00 ( p =1.00, n =5)
-0.30 ( p =0.62)
MASSIVE
430.3 ± 250.1
0.50 ( p =0.39, n =5)
0.30 ( p =0.62)
Pooled (all datasets)
—
0.61 ( p =0.0012, n =25)
0.76 ( p =0.0000)
TABLE II: Embedding-margin shift and its correlation with AUROC drop.
Fig. 4: After-personalization OOS-rejection AUROC across all seven tested method configurations. Full fine-tuning is a diagnostic control, not a proposed fix (it defeats the on-device, parameter-efficient premise of this paper). Both Mahalanobis-scorer variants (purple/grey) beat naive LoRA (blue) and the calibration-replay-based combined method (pink) on every dataset; the orthogonal-projection-LoRA-only and calibration-replay-only components (green/orange) do not reliably beat naive LoRA alone.
Dataset
Naive LoRA
Full FT
+Mahalanobis
+OPLoRA+Mahalanobis
CLINC150
0.886 ± 0.046
0.947 ± 0.005
0.970 ± 0.001
0.971 ± 0.001
Banking77
0.806 ± 0.077
0.831 ± 0.060
0.878 ± 0.021
0.885 ± 0.015
HWU64
0.769 ± 0.076
0.810 ± 0.033
0.868 ± 0.039
0.868 ± 0.037
SNIPS
0.687 ± 0.116
0.861 ± 0.028
0.874 ± 0.046
0.877 ± 0.051
MASSIVE
0.787 ± 0.018
0.808 ± 0.035
0.847 ± 0.038
0.853 ± 0.034
TABLE III: After-personalization OOS-rejection AUROC, mean ± std ( n=5 seeds), key configurations. Full results (all 7 methods) in Fig. 4 and the released artifact.
Dataset
Naive LoRA
Combined-Maha
Chance level
Naive enrichment
CLINC150
0.681 ± 0.119
0.302 ± 0.150
0.033
20.4 ×
Banking77
0.535 ± 0.175
0.316 ± 0.145
0.077
7.0 ×
HWU64
0.550 ± 0.137
0.165 ± 0.122
0.093
5.9 ×
SNIPS
0.896 ± 0.176
0.679 ± 0.341
0.333
2.7 ×
MASSIVE
0.320 ± 0.142
0.246 ± 0.129
0.098
3.3 ×
TABLE IV: Fraction of false accepts (OOS test points scored in-scope) predicted as a new intent, naive LoRA vs. combined_maha (mean ± std, n=5 seeds), against the chance level under a uniform prediction over all classes.
Dataset
MSP drop
Maha-fixed drop
Energy AUROC
ODIN AUROC
Combined-Maha AUROC
CLINC150
0.078 ± 0.047
0.004 ± 0.000
0.922 ± 0.016
0.916 ± 0.018
0.971 ± 0.001
Banking77
0.067 ± 0.046
0.027 ± 0.009
0.801 ± 0.055
0.807 ± 0.057
0.885 ± 0.015
HWU64
0.097 ± 0.063
0.023 ± 0.011
0.786 ± 0.088
0.781 ± 0.089
0.868 ± 0.037
SNIPS
0.258 ± 0.139
0.091 ± 0.029
0.841 ± 0.060
0.829 ± 0.094
0.877 ± 0.051
MASSIVE
0.055 ± 0.037
0.027 ± 0.013
0.803 ± 0.029
0.805 ± 0.030
0.853 ± 0.034
TABLE V: Robustness checks: how much of the naive-LoRA drop is scorer choice (columns 2–3, mean ± std, n=5 seeds), and combined_maha versus two further OOD-scoring baselines (columns 4–6, after-personalization AUROC). ODIN: temperature-scaling half only.
Fig. 5: After-personalization OOS-rejection AUROC, naive LoRA vs. combined_maha , pooled across all 5 datasets ( n=25 ), across shot count, LoRA rank, and base encoder. The fix holds (non-overlapping 95% CI, higher AUROC, no accuracy cost) on 8 of 9 tested conditions; only k=1 misses the CI bar, directionally favorable but the noisiest cell in the sweep.
Accurate evaluation of LLM personalization is hindered by current evaluation paradigms that over- or under-constrain the response space, yielding frequent false rejections and false acceptances. To reduce these false rates, we introduce ConQual-Audit, an audit-based framework that evaluates LLM personalization through a three-stage process: (1) extracting semantic constraints from user profiles and task-grounded reference; (2) qualifying constraints by pruning unnecessary constraints and recovering missing constraints; and (3) verifying candidate responses against the audited constraints via natural language inference. Across PrefEval and LaMP, ConQual-Audit outperforms nine baselines, attaining top AUCs (0.88 and 0.90) and the lowest false rate (0.21) on the leanest constraint sets at an amortizable audit cost. Crucially, this constraint audit is portable: integrating it into ExPerT and PREF helps revise smaller, higher-quality constraint sets to reduce their evaluation false rates.
Xuran Li, Guanqin Zhang, Imran Razzak +4
University of New South Wales · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · The Technology Innovation Institute +1
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to adapt to individual users, yet effective personalization remains challenging when only limited user-specific samples are available. In this work, we take an alternative perspective: pretrained LLMs may already possess latent capacity for personalization, and a few user samples may therefore suffice to guide the model toward user-aligned behavior with minimal user-specific adaptation. From this perspective, we propose LatentPersonal, a framework that formulates personalization as navigation in a shared latent adaptation space. LatentPersonal infers a compact latent representation from a few user samples to guide user-specific model adaptation, regularized with a variational information bottleneck to encourage compact preference representations. We instantiate LatentPersonal with LoRA, leveraging its low-rank parameterization as a natural low-dimensional adaptation space for personalization. By simply inserting a user-specific guidance vector between the shared low-rank factors, the model can navigate toward personalized adaptations through lightweight inference of this compact representation, without updating the shared LoRA parameters. Experiments across multiple personalization datasets demonstrate that LatentPersonal substantially reduces user-specific adaptation overhead while achieving effective personalization from only a few user-specific interactions, with particularly strong performance in the one-shot regime.
Wei Chen, Guanghui Zhu, Zhongliang Cai +1
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University
On-device large language models (LLMs'), e.g. running on mobile phones, are ripe for improvement via personalization. The limited compute resources of mobile devices impose limits on model scale and thus model quality, making any realizable quality gains highly impactful. At the same time, their personal nature (i.e., the close coupling to a particular user) means that a given on-device LLM tends to be used in similar, predictable patterns over the course of time. This paper presents a novel method for personalizing on-device LLMs. It trains a hypernetwork to map a user's context tokens to a low-rank adaptation (LoRA') well-suited to that user. Once the trained common artifacts are deployed to users' devices, each user uses the hypernetwork to synthesize (entirely on device) a personalized LoRA. This approach blends the benefits while avoiding the drawbacks of two existing approaches to LLM customization: in-context learning (ICL') and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT'). Like ICL (and unlike PEFT), the on-device phase of our approach is computationally feasible, requiring only forward passes through neural networks. Like PEFT (and unlike ICL), our approach modifies the `target' base LLM via weights (the LoRA), avoiding negative consequences (e.g. increased latency) associated with extending the input sequence. Our approach is particularly well-suited to the mobile device regime. Apart from the on-device compute and latency benefits mentioned, it also requires minimal additional storage, as internally its architecture partly leverages the same LLM weights as belong to the target LLM to be personalized. We demonstrate the benefits of LoRA-generating hypernetworks on several representative personalization datasets, comparing against baselines like ICL and PEFT. Of note, our personalization experiments focus on more challenging and less studied long-form text generation tasks.
Sean Augenstein, Li Ding, Jihwan Lee +2
Google · Formerly at Google, work done while at Google