Personalizing AI assistants requires adapting their behavior to users' preferences and task contexts. Existing work elicits assistant personas through persona prompting or finetuning on persona-conditioned generations. However, persona descriptions alone do not identify what to change or preserve in a particular response, or which behaviors suit the current request. We introduce Persona Learning from Feedback (PLF), a framework that learns reusable, preference-grounded assistant personas as independent LoRA adapters on a shared frozen backbone. During training, a frozen self-teacher conditions on persona specifications and response-specific feedback to provide token-level supervision on each adapter's own generated prefixes. A feedback gate focuses corrective updates on responses judged to need improvement. At deployment, a supervised router uses the request or dialogue to select a single adapter or a fixed composition, without user-specific finetuning. We evaluate PLF on single-turn personalization with model-generated critiques and multi-turn tutoring with simulated students' reactions. Across both settings, PLF improves model-judged preference fit over fixed-persona policies and strong baselines including persona prompting and persona distillation, demonstrating how feedback-trained behaviors can be reused for adaptive assistant personalization without degrading general capabilities.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Persona Learning from Feedback (PLF). (a) A frozen teacher uses critiques or conversational feedback to supervise persona adapters on student-generated prefixes. A feedback gate excludes satisfactory responses from updates. (b) A supervised router selects personas using the request or dialogue, activating a single adapter or a fixed signed composition.
Figure 2: Preference fit of feedback-trained personas. Percentages of PLF wins, ties, and alternative wins on (a) 499 single-turn requests and (b) 1,000 tutoring dialogue pairs from 500 openings evaluated with both student types. Persona prompting uses the same router as PLF.
Table 3
Figure 3: Student satisfaction under changing preferences. Share of replies without flagged objections, averaged across switch directions: (a) whole lessons, with 95% bootstrap intervals; (b) aligned to the switch at j . Only the oracle knows the new preference when choosing turn j .
(a) Persona composition: warm + concise
User request: “Hi! Could you tell me five benefits of working from home? Keep it friendly and short, please!”
Concise head
“1. Save time on commuting. 2. Work in your own rhythm. 3. No office stress. 4. More control over your day. 5. Save money on expenses.”
Warm head
“Absolutely! Here are five cozy, home-based wins-no jargon, just vibes: 1. No commute stress-You skip traffic, parking, and the daily grind. Just chill in your PJs and sip your coffee…”
PLF mixture
“Sure! Here’s a quick list: 1. No commute stress-just save time and energy. 2. Work in your favorite comfy spot. 3. More time for yourself and your family. 4. Flex your schedule to fit your energy. 5. Fewer office distractions-focus, no noise!”
(b) Tutoring: direct → interactive
Student feedback
“You’re just telling me facts again; ask me a real question instead. ”
Table 3: Examples of persona composition and adaptation. The warm-head response (129 words in full) is excerpted; emoji are omitted.
Figure 4: Feedback gating during persona learning. (a) Critic no-change rate in single-turn personalization. (b) Satisfaction-judge acceptance in multi-turn tutoring before additional gating checks. Higher values indicate more responses passing the displayed feedback check. Thin lines are raw values and thick lines are centered nine-point means.
Method
IFEval ↑
GSM8K ↑
MMLU-Pro ↑
MT-Bench ↑
Single-turn QA/ Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
Base
86.5
93.2
67.2
6.87
Persona prompting
87.2 (+0.7)
92.8 ( − 0.4)
67.4 (+0.2)
6.78 ( − 0.09)
Persona distillation
86.1 ( − 0.4)
93.4 (+0.2)
67.4 (+0.2)
6.68 ( − 0.19)
Feedback imitation
85.6 ( − 0.9)
92.3 ( − 0.9)
66.3 ( − 0.9)
6.69 ( − 0.18)
PLF
85.4 ( − 1.1)
93.0 ( − 0.2)
66.9 ( − 0.3)
6.79 ( − 0.08)
Table 4: Scores on four standard LLM benchmarks. We compare the base models with PLF and three alternative baseline methods. Scores are percentages except MT-Bench (1–10).
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Split
Users
Original requests
Usable rewrites
Train
1,033
5,698
5,677
Validation
39
203
203
Test
89
500
499
Appendix
Table 5: Single-turn data splits. User counts refer to the original-request splits after filtering and deduplication. Rewritten requests are used for router training or evaluation, not for persona-head training. The final head-training corpus is separately expanded to 6,400 original requests from 1,242 users.
Setting
Value
LoRA
Rank 32, scale 64, dropout 0, all linear layers
Training pass
6,400 original requests, 100 batches of 64
Batch sizes
Training 64, training microbatch 4, rollout microbatch 8
Student sampling
Temperature 0.7, top- p 1.0, one sample per head and request
Table 6: Single-turn persona-head training configuration. The backbone remains frozen, and the four heads are independent LoRA adapters.
PLF versus
n
Wins
Ties
Losses
Win rate [95% CI]
Single-turn personalization
Warm head
499
350
65
84
76.7 [73,80]
Impersonal head
499
344
72
83
76.2 [73,79]
Concise head
499
316
111
72
74.4 [71,78]
Thorough head
499
344
84
71
77.4 [74,81]
Base
499
332
78
89
74.3 [71,78]
Appendix
Table 7: Preference fit with full judgment counts. Wins, ties, and losses are from PLF’s perspective. Win rates and confidence intervals are percentages. The tutoring oracle knows the hidden preference.
Setting
n
PLF wins
Ties
Prompt wins
PLF win rate
Single-turn
96
43
22
31
56.3%
Multi-turn tutoring
100
47
18
35
56.0%
Appendix
Table 8: Human preference evaluation of PLF against persona prompting.
PLF versus
Wins
Ties
Losses
Win rate [95% CI]
Direct-instruction students
Direct head
173
98
229
44.4 [40.6,48.4]
Interactive head
432
32
36
89.6 [87.2,91.9]
Base
246
56
198
54.8 [50.7,58.8]
Persona prompting
244
67
189
55.5 [51.5,59.6]
Persona distillation
238
74
188
55.0 [51.2,58.8]
Appendix
Table 9: Tutoring preference fit by student type. Each comparison uses the same 500 test openings. Counts are PLF wins, ties, and losses against the indicated policy. Win rates and confidence intervals are percentages.
Satisfaction ↑
Factual errors ↓
Policy
D
I
Mean
D
I
Mean
Base
77.8
73.5
75.6
9.2
6.5
7.9
Direct head
81.9
68.3
75.1
9.0
5.6
7.3
Interactive head
62.3
84.1
73.2
7.7
5.6
6.7
Persona prompting
77.1
82.5
79.8
10.0
6.2
8.1
PLF
80.6
83.5
82.1
9.3
4.9
7.1
Appendix
Table 10: Student satisfaction and factual errors. Each policy generates eight tutor turns on 500 openings for each student type. D and I denote direct-instruction and interactive students. Satisfaction is the percentage of replies not flagged as objections, and factual errors are the percentage of tutor turns flagged by the fact-checking judge. Means weight the student types equally. The oracle uses the matching head, with differences from the corresponding fixed-head run due to sampling.
Composition rule
Win rate
95% CI
Sum of the requested heads
39
[30,48]
Average of the requested heads
50
[42,59]
Axis-weighted composition
70
[62,78]
Appendix
Table 11: Validation comparison of composition rules. Win rates against prompting with both persona cards, with half credit for ties. Rates and confidence intervals are percentages.
Requested pair
n
Warm
Impersonal
Concise
Thorough
Warm + concise
48
89 [80,96]
78 [68,89]
72 [60,82]
98 [95,100]
Warm + thorough
59
81 [73,90]
97 [93,100]
99 [97,100]
47 [37,58]
Impersonal + concise
55
68 [57,79]
51 [39,63]
53 [43,64]
82 [72,91]
Impersonal + thorough
60
91 [84,97]
66 [55,76]
81 [71,89]
63 [54,72]
Appendix
Table 12: Composition on correctly routed test requests. Mixture win rates (%) against each fixed head, with 95% confidence intervals. Bold rates compare with a constituent of the requested pair. Results cover 222 correctly routed requests out of 247 paired-preference requests.
PLF versus
Requested pair
All n
Correct n
Voice head
Depth head
Warm + concise
62
48
81 [73,90]
60 [50,71]
Warm + thorough
62
59
78 [69,86]
47 [37,56]
Impersonal + concise
61
55
55 [43,66]
54 [44,64]
Impersonal + thorough
62
60
65 [54,75]
63 [53,72]
Appendix
Table 13: Composition including routing errors. PLF win rates against the requested voice and depth heads on all requests assigned to each pair, including routing errors. Correct n gives the number whose selected pair matches the assigned pair. Win rates are percentages with half credit for ties and 95% bootstrap confidence intervals; all requests in the row form the denominator.
Switch
Direct head
Interactive head
Base
Oracle
Direct → interactive
55 [51,58]
81 [78,83]
54 [51,58]
47 [43,51]
Interactive → direct
67 [64,71]
56 [52,60]
59 [55,62]
40 [36,44]
Mean
61 [59,63]
68 [66,70]
56 [54,59]
43 [41,46]
Appendix
Table 14: Preference fit under switching. PLF win rates (%) with 95% confidence intervals. Each direction uses 500 test openings. Bold rates compare with the fixed head matching the preference before the switch. The oracle knows the new preference when choosing turn j .
Satisfaction around the switch
Policy
Overall [95% CI]
Before j
j
j+1
j+2
≥j+3
Base
73.0 [72.0,74.1]
77.4
64.1
73.7
69.0
70.3
Direct head
71.4 [70.4,72.5]
74.9
62.7
73.7
65.1
71.0
Interactive head
66.4 [65.3,67.6]
69.5
57.8
67.9
64.0
65.2
PLF
76.7 [75.7,77.6]
84.9
62.5
74.3
71.8
70.7
Oracle
79.2 [78.3,80.2]
86.4
70.8
74.7
73.4
74.0
Appendix
Table 15: Satisfaction under switching, averaged over directions. All satisfaction values are percentages. The overall column includes a 95% confidence interval over opening–direction pairs. The remaining columns align tutor turns to the switch at j and average the direction-specific bucket percentages.
Policy
Overall
Before j
j
j+1
j+2
≥j+3
Direct instruction → interactive guidance
Base
77.1
81.0
69.4
77.8
75.9
73.3
Direct head
79.1
85.9
72.6
76.4
72.5
72.5
Interactive head
61.3
52.6
62.0
69.6
70.4
70.9
PLF
79.8
84.9
69.6
79.2
79.0
75.1
Oracle
81.3
87.0
73.2
78.6
77.6
77.3
Appendix
Table 16: Switching satisfaction by direction. Satisfaction percentages over 500 dialogues per direction, with buckets aligned to the switch turn j . The oracle anticipates the switch, while PLF first observes evidence of it after generating turn j .
Switch
First opportunity (%)
Additional delay
No detection
Direct → interactive
48.0
0.63
113/500
Interactive → direct
31.6
0.67
225/500
Both directions
39.8
0.65
338/1,000
Appendix
Table 17: PLF’s detection of a preference switch. First opportunity is the percentage of dialogues selecting the new head at j+1 . Additional delay counts turns beyond j+1 until the first selection of the new head, conditional on that selection occurring. No detection counts dialogues ending without such a selection.
Direct-instruction head
Interactive head
Cycles
Satisfied
Masked
Satisfied
Masked
1–20
68.0
48.4
67.9
60.1
21–40
70.3
48.9
73.5
67.8
41–60
71.0
50.7
72.9
66.9
61–80
70.6
48.8
72.0
67.6
81–100
69.9
49.0
71.8
66.9
Appendix
Table 18: Tutoring feedback and masking during training. Percentages are averaged within blocks of 20 rollout cycles. Satisfied denotes acceptance by the training satisfaction judge. Masked denotes responses excluded from distillation after all gating checks. Each cycle contains 256 tutor turns per head.
Group
n
W/T/L
Win rate
95% CI
All requests
499
225/158/116
60.9
[57,64]
All single-persona
252
104/77/71
56.5
[52,62]
All paired
247
121/81/45
65.4
[61,70]
Warm
63
37/10/16
66.7
[56,77]
Impersonal
63
34/15/14
65.9
[56,76]
Concise
63
16/29/18
48.4
[40,57]
Appendix
Table 19: Single-turn gate ablation at step 60. Gated versus ungated PLF on test requests. Win rates (%) give ties half credit; intervals are 95% percentile bootstraps over requests. Groups are defined by requested preferences and include routing errors.
Student preference
n
W/T/L
Win rate
Sign-test p
Direct instruction
500
215/73/212
50.3
0.92
Interactive guidance
500
242/70/188
55.4
0.011
Both types
1,000
457/143/400
52.9
0.056
Appendix
Table 20: Tutoring gate ablation with matched heads. Gated versus ungated heads. Win rates (%) use half credit for ties. The two-sided sign test compares wins with losses, excluding ties; the pooled row combines both student types on the same 500 openings.
Measure
Gate
No gate
Difference [95% CI]
Interactive: strict satisfaction
74.5
70.5
+4.0 [1.7,6.4]
Interactive: no objection
85.1
82.7
+2.4 [0.9,4.0]
Interactive: asks a question
86.3
82.4
+3.9 [1.7,6.1]
Interactive: repetition complaints
2.7
4.2
−1.5 [ −2.4 , −0.7 ]
Direct: strict satisfaction
40.4
39.0
+1.4 [ −1.3 ,3.8]
Direct: no objection
81.9
81.1
+0.8 [ −0.7 ,2.4]
Appendix
Table 21: Tutoring behavior under gated and ungated training. Rates per 100 tutor turns; differences are gate minus no gate, with 95% paired bootstrap intervals over opening–student pairs. Strict satisfaction uses the full three-part gate rule; no objection is the evaluation satisfaction metric. Rates and differences are rounded independently.
Requested preference
n
Forward-KL win rate [95% CI]
Single-persona requests
Warm
63
49 [38,60]
Impersonal
63
68 [58,78]
Concise
63
40 [31,49]
Thorough
63
57 [48,67]
Paired-preference requests
Appendix
Table 22: Forward versus reverse KL at step 60. Forward-KL preference win rates (%) under the routed single-turn protocol, with 95% bootstrap intervals over requests. Request groups are defined by assigned preferences and include routing errors; values above 50% favor forward KL.
Token entropy
Top-token agreement
Hedge-mass retention
Persona
T
F
R
F
R
F
R
Warm
0.78
1.08
0.82
0.79
0.80
0.91
0.90
Impersonal
0.61
0.98
0.64
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.76
Concise
0.32
0.93
0.31
0.73
0.73
0.57
0.45
Thorough
0.81
1.00
0.83
0.88
0.88
0.94
0.93
Appendix
Table 23: Diagnostics under the reconstructed training teacher. T, F, and R denote teacher, forward-KL head, and reverse-KL head. Top-token agreement compares the head’s most probable token with the teacher’s. Hedge-mass retention is the share of the teacher’s hedge-word probability retained by the head. Values are the reported averages.
Modern AI agents are powerful but often fail to align with the idiosyncratic, evolving preferences of individual users. Prior approaches typically rely on static datasets, either training implicit preference models on interaction history or encoding user profiles in external memory. However, these approaches struggle with new users and with preferences that change over time. We introduce Personalized Agents from Human Feedback (PAHF), a framework for continual personalization in which agents learn online from live interaction using explicit per-user memory. PAHF operationalizes a three-step loop: (1) seeking pre-action clarification to resolve ambiguity, (2) grounding actions in preferences retrieved from memory, and (3) integrating post-action feedback to update memory when preferences drift. To evaluate this capability, we develop a four-phase protocol and two benchmarks in embodied manipulation and online shopping. These benchmarks quantify an agent's ability to learn initial preferences from scratch and subsequently adapt to persona shifts. Our theoretical analysis and empirical results show that integrating explicit memory with dual feedback channels is critical: PAHF learns substantially faster and consistently outperforms both no-memory and single-channel baselines, reducing initial personalization error and enabling rapid adaptation to preference shifts.
Kaiqu Liang, Julia Kruk, Shengyi Qian +9
Meta Superintelligence Labs · Princeton University · Duke University
Personalizing large language models (LLMs) to individual users is essential for improving user experience, yet existing approaches typically rely on explicit preference supervision such as pairwise comparisons or demographic attributes, limiting their applicability in natural interaction settings. We propose IRIS, a framework that learns dynamic user personas directly from implicit interaction streams by extracting behavioral signals from everyday conversations and iteratively refining persona representations through a prediction-driven closed loop without requiring explicit feedback. We introduce an evaluation protocol based on behavior prediction, persona stability, and decision prediction. A proof-of-concept study on a synthetic interaction stream derived from public-domain autobiographical text shows that IRIS produces stable personas and distinguishes individual users while revealing limitations of memory-only approaches on recall-oriented metrics. We then validate IRIS on anonymized real-world Reddit r/AmItheAsshole (AITA) data, with personas built solely from each author's historical interactions. Across 100 authors, IRIS achieves the highest decision prediction accuracy among all evaluated methods (61.0%), outperforming static personas, memory-only retrieval, and no-personalization baselines. These results suggest that implicit behavioral modeling provides a scalable alternative to explicit preference learning for personalized LLMs and offers a practical foundation for adaptive conversational systems and embodied agents that require continuously evolving models of their users.
User feedback enables LLMs to refine reusable personalized skills, but often mixes persistent preferences with request-specific corrections. Indiscriminately retaining both risks negative transfer, motivating selective retention at the level of individual requirements. We frame this challenge as selective transfer over atomic rules and propose SkillGrain, a framework for learning reusable personalized skills from user feedback. SkillGrain decomposes feedback into independently actionable rules, predicts their transferability, and retains only those suitable for future requests. To learn these decisions, we combine rubric-guided skill rewards with fine-grained credit assignment that separately evaluates rule content and retention decisions. We further jointly optimize skill induction and skill-conditioned generation through reinforcement learning, ensuring that learned skills support downstream personalization. We construct a benchmark spanning five personalized writing tasks to evaluate cross-request generalization. Experiments across three base models in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings show that SkillGrain achieves the best overall average performance among competing methods.
Li Wang, Chen Zhang, Yirong Yang +4
Beihang University · Chengdu University of Information Technology · Nanyang Technological University +2