Effective test-time personalization requires LLM agents to adapt to query-dependent user preferences from lightweight interaction. We study persona selection with binary comparisons between candidate responses as the online signal. We present ID-TAP, a scalable, IDS-inspired neural dueling-bandit framework for large discrete persona spaces. ID-TAP combines a query-conditioned neural utility model with a lightweight Bradley-Terry explorer, and transfers comparison evidence across related queries through similarity-weighted warm starts. The neural model shares statistical strength across queries while preserving query-specific scores, and efficient BT updates score hypothetical challengers. Across seven user-conditioned generation benchmarks under reference- and model-based preference simulators, ID-TAP achieves the strongest aggregate performance among the evaluated baselines within a fixed ten-round comparison budget. These results support information-directed challenger selection as an effective design for test-time persona adaptation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of ID-TAP. Historical context induces a shared persona space and each new query inherits similarity-weighted BT statistics from prior queries (1–2). At every interaction round, the neural utility model selects the champion and estimates utility gaps, while the query-local BT explorer computes a plug-in entropy-reduction proxy; their acquisition ratio selects the challenger (3). The agent generates the resulting response pair, obtains one binary preference, and updates both systems (4–5). After T rounds, the highest-scoring persona produces the personalized response, and the query-local BT increments are retained for later warm starts.
Dataset
PersonaAgent
POHF
PDO Sampling
ID-TAP
R.L
W.R.
R.L
W.R.
R.L
W.R.
R.L
W.R.
LaMP-4
0.607
70.6 ± 8.6
0.659
68.3 ± 6.7
0.660
69.4 ± 7.5
0.781
73.0 ± 5.5
LaMP-5
0.723
59.7 ± 1.8
0.822
67.5 ± 1.0
0.817
68.7 ± 1.4
0.924
77.2 ± 0.4
LongLaMP-2
0.887
88.8 ± 1.3
0.880
79.5 ± 1.3
0.865
83.2 ± 0.7
0.939
84.7 ± 2.0
LongLaMP-3
0.882
82.3 ± 3.0
0.914
80.3 ± 2.8
0.912
77.2 ± 3.5
0.964
85.7 ± 2.1
LongLaMP-4
0.864
85.2 ± 1.3
0.868
84.9 ± 1.6
0.872
84.0 ± 0.7
0.962
87.9 ± 0.2
Table 1: Performance across seven benchmarks under two proxy-feedback mechanisms. R.L. is per-query normalized ROUGE-L. W.R. is the final-response win rate against a naive response and is reported as mean ± SEM across users. Dataset results aggregate per-user means from three independent runs; the last row is the macro-average of dataset means. Bold marks the best result and underlining marks the second best.
Figure 2: Performance averaged over LaMP-4, LaMP-5, LongLaMP-2, LongLaMP-3, and LongLaMP-4. Left: query-wise normalized ROUGE-L. Right: optimization over ten simulated-preference rounds.
Method
LongLaMP-3
LongLaMP-4
PrefEval
Random Response
0.601
0.497
0.448
Random Acquisition + Neural Final
0.615
0.516
0.507
ID-TAP-NH
0.764
0.647
0.629
ID-TAP-NBT
0.774
0.657
0.629
Random Challenger
0.778
0.644
0.618
Full ID-TAP
0.783
0.664
0.629
Table 2: Normalized ROUGE-L for matched component ablations, aggregated from per-user means over three independent runs. NH removes neural and BT history; NBT retains neural history but removes BT transfer.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Parameter
Symbol
Value
Small profile threshold
Tsmall
10
Large profile threshold
Tlarge
20
History context count (small)
Hsmall
5
History context count (large)
Hlarge
10
Total I/O pairs limit
NIO
10
Appendix
Table 3: Data Splitting Parameters
Dataset
Neval
PersonaAgent
POHF
PDO Samp.
ID-TAP
LaMP-4
363
0.1700 ± 0.007846
0.1790 ± 0.007499
0.1768 ± 0.007085
0.1973 ± 0.006559
LaMP-5
400
0.3924 ± 0.009460
0.4385 ± 0.008671
0.4346 ± 0.008551
0.4927 ± 0.008513
LongLaMP-2
400
0.1729 ± 0.002141
0.1716 ± 0.002119
0.1678 ± 0.001918
0.1831 ± 0.002042
LongLaMP-3
230
0.1322 ± 0.001532
0.1391 ± 0.001712
0.1378 ± 0.001251
0.1456 ± 0.001562
LongLaMP-4
326
0.1217 ± 0.001576
0.1234 ± 0.001806
0.1234 ± 0.001547
0.1367 ± 0.001853
PrefEval
40
0.1700 ± 0.005887
0.2103 ± 0.006989
0.1943 ± 0.004623
0.2131 ± 0.007093
Appendix
Table 4: Unnormalized ROUGE-L performance before per-query normalization. Results are mean ± SEM across users, where each user’s result averages three independent runs. Bold indicates the best result and underlined values indicate the second-best result in each dataset.
Dataset
Nuser
μˉ
σˉ
p10
p90
Near-dup ≥ 0.95 (%)
Eff. Arm (%)
Silhouette ( K =20)
LaMP-4
20
0.672
0.090
0.553
0.779
0.041
97.6
0.104
LaMP-5
20
0.694
0.081
0.590
0.790
0.094
95.3
0.125
LongLaMP-2
20
0.701
0.080
0.599
0.794
0.092
95.0
0.121
LongLaMP-3
20
0.657
0.093
0.537
0.769
0.018
98.2
0.107
LongLaMP-4
20
0.686
0.084
0.577
0.787
0.037
97.5
0.105
PrefEval
40
0.716
0.083
0.607
0.814
0.190
94.4
0.098
Appendix
Table 5: Persona space quality metrics across 7 benchmarks (180 users in total; 400 candidates per user). Nuser is the number of sampled users in each dataset. μˉ : mean pairwise cosine similarity; σˉ : standard deviation; p10 / p90 : 10th/90th percentile of the pairwise similarity distribution; Near-dup: fraction of pairs with similarity ≥0.95 ; Eff. Arm: percentage of candidates whose nearest-neighbor similarity <0.95 ; Silhouette: K-means silhouette coefficient at K=20 .
Category
Parameter
Symbol
Value
Neural Network
Input dimension
din
2×demb
Hidden dimension
dh
1024
Number of hidden layers
L
1
Activation function
σ(⋅)
GELU
Dropout rate
pdrop
0.05
Training
Learning rate
η
5×10−4
Appendix
Table 6: Complete hyperparameter configuration for ID-TAP. The table is organized into four sections: neural network architecture, training settings, algorithm-specific parameters, and LLM configuration.
Dataset
μˉ (IR)
μˉ (KW)
Δμˉ
LaMP-4
0.672
0.720
+0.048
LongLaMP-4
0.686
0.695
+0.009
PrefEval
0.716
0.830
+0.114
UltraChat
0.715
0.834
+0.119
Appendix
Table 7: Mean pairwise cosine similarity under iterative rephrasing (IR) and keyword-conditioned construction (KW).
Dataset
POHF
PDO Samp.
ID-TAP
LaMP-4
24.1
25.7
73.5
LongLaMP-4
25.3
28.1
72.2
PrefEval
65.0
64.0
95.3
UltraChat
67.3
66.8
94.8
Appendix
Table 8: Arm-2 exploration rates under iterative rephrasing (IR).
Dataset
POHF
PDO Samp.
ID-TAP
LaMP-4
16.6 ( −7.5 )
17.6 ( −8.1 )
74.8 ( +1.3 )
LongLaMP-4
16.5 ( −8.8 )
20.3 ( −7.8 )
71.9 ( −0.3 )
PrefEval
61.0 ( −4.0 )
62.5 ( −1.5 )
94.4 ( −0.9 )
UltraChat
64.8 ( −2.5 )
60.5 ( −6.3 )
93.3 ( −1.5 )
Appendix
Table 9: Arm-2 exploration rates under keyword-conditioned construction (KW). Parentheses report the change from IR in percentage points.
Dataset group
Mean POHF exploration
Mean ID-TAP margin
LaMP-4 and LongLaMP-4
16.55%
+0.0160
PrefEval and UltraChat
62.90%
+0.0065
Appendix
Table 10: Association between conventional exploration under KW and ID-TAP’s ROUGE-L margin over the strongest baseline.
Dataset
ID-TAP
POHF
PDO Samp.
PersonaAgent
UltraChat
0.2430
0.2291
0.2213
0.1057
PrefEval
0.2587
0.2498
0.2430
0.1651
LaMP-4
0.2262
0.1900
0.2001
0.1529
LongLaMP-4
0.1392
0.1310
0.1320
0.1230
Appendix
Table 11: ROUGE-L with iterative-rephrasing personas ( K=100 , nuser=40 sampled users per dataset).
Dataset
ID-TAP
POHF
PDO Samp.
PersonaAgent
UltraChat
0.2565
0.2441
0.2496
0.1090
PrefEval
0.2614
0.2556
0.2527
0.1647
LaMP-4
0.2495
0.2201
0.2172
0.1554
LongLaMP-4
0.1388
0.1356
0.1350
0.1253
Appendix
Table 12: ROUGE-L with keyword-conditioned personas ( K=100 , nuser=40 sampled users per dataset).
Dataset
PersonaAgent
POHF
PDO Samp.
ID-TAP
LaMP-4
73.2
80.2
80.4
81.9
UltraChat
81.7
86.7
85.8
89.1
Appendix
Table 13: Win rate with GPT-4o used for both preference generation and evaluation.
Dataset
PersonaAgent
POHF
PDO Samp.
ID-TAP
LaMP-4
68.1
75.0
77.2
78.2
UltraChat
64.2
85.0
82.5
89.2
Appendix
Table 14: Win rate with GPT-4o preferences and DeepSeek-V3.2 evaluation.
Dataset
PersonaAgent
POHF
PDO Samp.
ID-TAP
UltraChat
0.838
0.890
0.889
0.892
PrefEval
0.847
0.885
0.887
0.888
LaMP-4
0.862
0.870
0.872
0.876
LongLaMP-4
0.812
0.814
0.812
0.818
Appendix
Table 15: BERTScore under a metric independent of the preference-optimization signal.
Dataset
Mean
Std.
SEM
UltraChat
1.1142
0.4211
0.0666
PrefEval
0.9513
0.1745
0.0276
LaMP-4
2.5674
0.9069
0.1434
LongLaMP-4
3.1499
0.9750
0.1542
Appendix
Table 16: ID-TAP wall-clock time with K=100 and nuser=40 sampled users per dataset. Statistics are computed across per-user averages of three independent runs and reported in seconds per interaction round.
Dataset
Mean
Std.
SEM
UltraChat
0.0964
0.0189
0.0030
PrefEval
0.0651
0.0157
0.0025
LaMP-4
0.5709
0.1459
0.0231
LongLaMP-4
0.3172
0.0839
0.0133
Appendix
Table 17: ID-TAP algorithmic update time with K=100 and nuser=40 sampled users per dataset. Statistics are computed across per-user averages of three independent runs and reported in seconds per interaction round.
Figure 5: Query-level performance across all evaluated benchmarks.
Figure 6: Iteration-level trajectories across all evaluated benchmarks.
LLM personalization adapts language models to users’ preferences, histories, expertise, and changing goals while balancing usefulness, privacy, and control.
Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated strong performance on complex web navigation tasks, yet they remain brittle in real-world settings where user intentions are underspecified and preferences are heterogeneous. In practice, users rarely provide explicit profiles, requiring agents to infer latent preferences from implicit signals. Despite its importance for deployment, this problem setting is largely underexplored in existing benchmarks. To address this gap, we introduce AdaptArena, a benchmark for evaluating test-time personalization of web agents via implicit preference inference. AdaptArena consists of 480 tasks, featuring both single-preference and double-preference scenarios. Each evaluation task must be solved by retrieving and leveraging the most relevant historical user trajectory that implicitly encodes the target preference. In addition, we introduce AdaptiveAgent, a retrieval-based framework for standardized evaluation of implicit preference inference. Experiments reveal a substantial performance gap: while oracle agents with access to ground-truth preferences achieve an 82.92% success rate, the evaluated LLM agents using our framework reach at most 15.62%. Furthermore, we find that correctly inferring user preferences is necessary but not sufficient for task success, as execution failures in downstream web interactions remain a significant bottleneck even when agents align with the target preference. These findings highlight implicit preference inference and robust action grounding as key challenges for deploying reliable, user-facing web agents. We release our code: https://github.com/McGill-NLP/web-agents-test-time-adaptations
Dongchan Shin, Xing Han Lù, Jiaqi Deng +7
Mila - Quebec AI Institute · McGill University · ServiceNow Research +2
Large language models can answer the same question in different styles, but users' preferred styles are hidden and vary across users and questions. We study inference-time personalization through online selection from a fixed set of prompts, each representing a persona. Users arrive sequentially, each asks a short sequence of questions, and the system displays two responses per question and observes one pairwise choice. We formulate this interaction as a variant of the contextual dueling bandit problem in which the learner starts without preference data, adapts within each session, and exploits information shared across users. The objective is to minimize cumulative strong regret, summing the utility gaps of both displayed responses relative to the user's best response among the available options. We make two contributions. First, we introduce the problem and release a reproducible preference benchmark and dataset built around a tutoring case study, containing educational questions, LLM-generated answers in six teaching styles, and pairwise judgments from LLM-simulated students with hidden preference profiles. We fit Bradley-Terry models to these judgments to obtain reference utilities for regret evaluation. Second, we propose a baseline that learns a mixture prior over users from completed sessions and adapts to each new user within the session. On students and topics never used in development, it removes 44-48% of random pairs' excess regret and achieves over half the performance of a per-user linear oracle fitted in hindsight. We release code, prompts, and the benchmark.
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.