LLM Personalization

Despite the growing availability of customizable social artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, Grok, and Character.ai, we know little about how users actively shape social AI to reflect their personal preferences. This study examines why and how users (N = 169) customize social AI through the lens of the newly developed concept of AI individualism. Through reflexive thematic analysis of open-ended responses, we identified several motivations for customization, including (1) enhanced pragmatic support, (2) emotional support or companionship, (3) trust and reliability, (4) pushback, (5) a tailored degree of human likeness, (6) creativity or playfulness, and (7) having the AI function as an extension of the self. In line with the concept of AI individualism, our findings show that, for many users, customization is a co-creative process between the human and the AI that is perceived as strengthening support, autonomy, ownership, and engagement, potentially contributing to a closer and more personal relationship. Through customization users may come to view social AI as a personalized social resource that increases their sense of individualism, freedom, and control. We discuss how these perceptions may foster pseudo-autonomy, whereby customization creates an illusion of individual control over powerful social AI systems.

Personal intelligence is becoming a central frontier for user-facing AI agents. To be helpful in everyday life, agents must understand users across the digital contexts where their preferences, intents, habits, social relationships, and needs unfold over time. Today's systems can personalize within individual apps or tasks, but personal intelligence as a whole remains under-measured: how agents build cross-context user understanding, support steerable recommendation systems, act proactively across platforms, and avoid over-personalization. We introduce PersonaMem-v3, a real-world-grounded benchmark and evaluation harness for omni-platform personal intelligence. PersonaMem-v3 is seeded from more than one million anonymized real-world engagement histories, most of which are implicit signals, and uses them to construct time-indexed user digital worlds across social media, chatbot, calendar, and AI-companion with preference evolvement over time. The benchmark brings personalization, LLM-powered recommendation, proactiveness, agentic tool use, and geo-temporal reasoning into one framework, anchored in psychology, social-linguistics, and user-behavior theories. It evaluates whether AI agents can infer holistic user understanding from cross-platform evidence, personalize responses, rerank recommendations on social media, follow user steering through natural language, and hold back when personalization would be inappropriate, repetitive, outdated, or unnecessary. PersonaMem-v3 points toward LLM-powered personal intelligent agents that work with existing scalable recommendation infrastructure while making personalization more interactive, agentic, and aligned with how real users experience their digital lives.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized AI services, but a critical tension emerges: while personalization improves model performance, it consumes scarce computational resources that users must share. When should a user invest in expensive Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) versus lightweight In-Context Learning (ICL)? How does congestion from other users' personalization choices reshape these incentives? And what strategies should platforms adopt when offering multiple personalization algorithms? We develop a tractable framework for LLM serving that captures the statistical-economic trade-offs users face. Our analysis yields several surprising insights. First, we show that ICL and SFT dominate in different regimes, determined by an interplay between pretraining coverage and data signal-to-noise ratios, but congestion can flip these rankings. Second, equilibrium resource consumption exhibits pronounced non-monotonicity: improving pretraining precision reduces the congestion, while broader pretraining coverage and harder tasks sometimes increase it. Third, we prove that offering both personalization methods never hurts the platform's maximal profits, despite potentially increasing computational load. Experiments with GPT-2 on linear regression tasks validate our theoretical predictions about algorithm performance. Complementing these results, our review of documentation from 21 major AI platforms shows that the share offering both SFT and ICL increased from 9.5% in 2021 to 71.4% in 2025, consistent with our platform-design implications.

Researchers organize the papers they collect into personal folder hierarchies in reference managers, and route each new paper into the folder where it belongs. This task differs from standard hierarchical text classification. A user's folder hierarchy is not a fixed, shared taxonomy but a private and evolving folksonomy whose folder meanings may be topical, shorthand, venue-based, or process-oriented, and are often defined by the papers already stored inside them. We formalize this setting as personalized hierarchical paper routing (PHPR): assigning an incoming paper to folders in a user-specific hierarchy without per-user training. We propose PaperRouter-Agent, a training-free LLM agent that grounds routing decisions in folder members rather than folder names alone. The agent first narrows the candidate hierarchy, retrieves folder-specific evidence, verifies fit by inspecting member papers, and incorporates similarity-gated feedback from past user rejections. A formative study on real personal libraries shows that PaperRouter-Agent raises overall Recall@1 from 0.39 to 0.61 and Recall@3 from 0.57 to 0.83, with the largest gains on organizational folders defined by metadata such as venue or year, where single-shot methods collapses (Recall@1 0.09 to 0.50). On the public LaMP-2 benchmark, the same approach improves accuracy from 44.5% to 51.5% (+9.0 macro-F1) over a single-shot baseline, while remaining low-cost for practical use.

Emotional intelligence enables humans to recognize emotions, infer their causes, reason about interventions, and modify their environment to achieve desired affective states. Despite recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), current models remain largely limited to generating realistic content or performing semantic reasoning, with little capacity for understanding, predicting, and personalizing human emotional responses. Here we introduce Emotion-augmented geneRatiOn System (EROS), a hybrid AI framework that integrates symbolic reasoning with deep learning to enable personalized emotion augmentation through visual content. Leveraging large-scale image-emotion datasets, EROS discovers generalizable affective rules, identifies emotion-relevant image regions, and predicts context-aware visual modifications that preserve scene semantics while steering emotional responses toward desired targets. To account for individual variability, EROS incorporates an expandable memory bank that supports inference-time personalization without model fine-tuning, yielding interpretable emotional profiles and rapid adaptation to new users. Across extensive human psychophysics experiments, EROS elicits target emotional responses more effectively than state-of-the-art large multimodal models while adapting to individual affective preferences. Beyond affective computing, EROS provides a foundation for AI systems that can understand, reason about, and augment human cognitive states, with potential applications in mental health, adaptive media, education, and human-computer interaction.

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.

Personalization changes what a model says to a user; we show that it can also change the reasoning trajectory used to justify the response. Modern LLMs personalize interactions by storing user attributes, preferences, and prior context, then injecting this information into future prompts. We study whether such memory reshapes reasoning on open-ended questions where no single ground-truth answer exists. To quantify this effect, we introduce DRIFTLENS, a ground-truth-free framework that maps each expressed reasoning step to a value category and measures divergence between a question's no-memory trajectory and its trajectory under injected user-attribute memory. We first validate that DRIFTLENS distinguishes content-free pragmatic noise from substantive reasoning changes. Across four LLMs and 10 user-attribute categories, including age, occupation, and disability, user-attribute memory induces medium-to-large reasoning drift above each model's pragmatic-noise floor, even when final answers remain fluent, on-topic, and plausible. We then evaluate GRPO- and DPO-based post-training methods for reducing drift. Both reduce drift, but neither uniformly dominates; effects on downstream capability, helpfulness, and instruction following are model-and reward-dependent. These results suggest that memory-induced reasoning drift is a measurable and only partly mitigated failure mode of personalized language models.

Demand for personalized financial advice is growing, yet current LLM-based advisors often fail to provide consistent and specialized guidance. Simple persona prompts rarely specify how a financial advisor should reason and often drift toward generic recommendations. We propose Fund2Persona, a framework that builds financial-advisor personas from real-world fund disclosures and refines them through an actor-scorer-patcher loop. We test whether the resulting personas can predict held-out portfolio changes and produce commentary consistent with fund managers' own explanations. They outperform generic baselines on both tasks. We further study two downstream diagnostics: market-scenario generation, where persona retrieval broadens plausible investment views, and multi-turn investor-advisor conversations, where matched personas give more specific and useful advice than a generic advisor. These results suggest that real fund data can bring manager-specific investment expertise to LLM advisors rather than merely changing an LLM's surface style.

Small Language Models (SLMs) are increasingly being considered for deployment on edge devices such as laptops, enabling private, low-latency, and locally personalized applications. However, personalization requires models to adapt over time to evolving user- or task-specific data, placing them in a continual learning setting. This creates the risk of catastrophic forgetting, where learning new information degrades performance on previously learned tasks or broader model capabilities. Recent benchmarks such as TRACE have shown that continual fine-tuning can significantly degrade the general abilities of aligned large language models. In this work, we present a study for sequential LoRA personalization of SLMs. We save model checkpoints after each adaptation stage and evaluate them on current tasks, previously seen tasks, and a fixed reference set. This checkpoint-level protocol enables us to monitor task performance, forgetting, and reference set drift over time. We show that lightweight reference set distributional diagnostics can reveal model-specific instability patterns during sequential LoRA personalization of SLMs, including cases where task-level metrics alone hide harmful adaptation. We hope this can highlight new research avenues for monitoring stability of SLMs in a continual learning setting.

Personalized language-model assistants are often evaluated through a memory lens: can a model recall preferences users have explicitly stated in dialogue? More comprehensive personalization demands a harder capability -- inferring what users care about from the multimodal traces they naturally leave behind. We introduce SocialPersona, a benchmark for evaluating whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can recover revealed preferences from longitudinal social-media timelines and use them in dialogue. Built from longitudinal timelines of 171 everyday, non-promotional social-media users, SocialPersona contains text, images, timestamps, and 2,597 human-verified preference tags across seven interest domains, separating stable interests from recent interests. It supports two tasks: constructing structured user profiles from multimodal context and generating responses aligned with inferred profiles. Experiments with proprietary and open-weight MLLMs show that models can identify broad interest domains, yet their performance drops on fine-grained and recent interests and degrades further when inferred profiles must be used to personalize dialogue. Together with evidence that text and images provide complementary preference signals, these results indicate that robust cross-modal, long-horizon user modeling remains a key challenge, and that SocialPersona can help measure and advance progress toward assistants that infer and act on revealed preferences.

Memory systems are essential for personalized Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing retrieval methods in these systems primarily rely on semantic similarity, potentially missing logically critical memories with limited semantic overlap. Current benchmarks remain inadequate for evaluating this problem. To address this gap, we construct IMLogic, the first high-quality benchmark targeting implicit logical memory retrieval in long-dialogue scenarios. Motivated by this challenge, we introduce root memory, a structured, decision-preserving representation that distills reusable personalized logic from long-term user histories. We then propose RootMem, a plug-and-play framework that first distills raw histories into structured root memories and then uses an LLM-based router to activate logically relevant ones, complementing semantic retrieval with personalized decision logic. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RootMem significantly outperforms the strongest retrieval baselines and consistently boosts the accuracy of existing memory agents. Our benchmark and codes will be available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/IMLogic-DBB3.

As mental health concerns continue to rise globally, social media has emerged as a vital space where individuals seek emotional support. While prior work on personalized emotional support has leveraged seekers' emotional states, personas, and situational context, these approaches primarily capture the seeker's current state, overlooking the formative experiences that shape present concerns. In this work, we propose MindTailor, a framework that generates personalized emotional support responses by constructing a case formulation from the seeker's post history and iteratively refining responses through collaborative critique among counselor agents grounded in distinct counseling strategies. To enable research on this history-aware task, we construct ReddiSupp, a dataset of 798 Reddit posts paired with seekers' prior post histories. Through LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation, expert human evaluation, and a user study with seekers, we demonstrate that MindTailor outperforms baselines across these evaluations, improving empathy, personalization, understanding, and achieving the highest overall preference.

Deploying highly capable personalized conversational agents in resource-constrained or privacy-sensitive environments remains a significant challenge. We identify a fundamental bottleneck in the existing approaches: current training paradigms treat personalization and grounding as a single monolithic learning problem. Under these paradigms, language models are forced to simultaneously address what to say (content grounding) and how to say it in a user-specific way (personalization), which introduces significant computational and optimization challenges. Consequently, contextual grounding is often sacrificed for persona adherence, or vice versa, resulting in responses that are either weakly grounded in the conversational history or insufficiently personalized. In this work, we propose the Generic Response-Augmented Generation (GRAG) framework that decouples these competing objectives by leveraging offline, generic responses from high-capacity, general-purpose LLMs as a semantic and structural scaffold to guide the fine-tuning of smaller, task-specialized models seamlessly in resource-limited environments. By decoupling the content grounding from personalization, GRAG allows the model to focus exclusively on persona injection while remaining firmly anchored to the conversational context. We instantiate the GRAG in two post- and pre-fusion-based architectural variants and evaluate them on multiple benchmark conversational datasets that cover diverse personalization structures. Our results demonstrate that GRAG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods that do not use auxiliary scaffolding, yielding up to 47% improvements in ROUGE-2 and 36% in BLEU scores. Ultimately, GRAG offers a generalizable blueprint for building grounding-aware personalized conversational systems in resource-limited environments.

Personal memory in a language model is two problems: content and reasoning skill. The brain keeps the two apart (a sparse, local engram in the hippocampus for each episode, a slow neocortex for the shared skills that interpret it), so a new fact need not overwrite everything else. Most personalization today keeps a user's facts outside the weights, in a natural-language memory file or a retrieval index. When facts are written into the model instead, the standard recipe is the per-user LoRA adapter, which does the opposite of the brain, folding content and skill into one global weight delta. Writing a user's facts as a LoRA contaminates text unrelated to them; writing the same facts as local Engram rows leaves it mathematically untouched, resulting in a roughly 33,000x smaller memory footprint. We therefore propose User as Engram: store a user's content as surgical edits to the hash-keyed memory table of an Engram model, and carry the reasoning skill in one shared adapter. This layered design matches per-user LoRA's direct recall while delivering 5.6x higher indirect-reasoning accuracy on average, and never makes a single user worse at reasoning than the untouched base. The edit is a glass box: writing a fact switches on its lookup at exactly the trigger, adds the value the answer needs, leaves every other position unchanged to the last bit, and fails if written into the wrong layer. Because different users' facts land in disjoint hash slots, their edits compose: many users live in one shared table at once, stacking additively and losslessly, where a per-user LoRA, a single global weight delta, admits only one. Upon retrieval, a per-user Engram table does not grow with the population the retriever must search, so past ~100 facts it overtakes a retrieval pipeline on a 2.5x larger model.

Deep research (DR) systems are increasingly used for complex information-seeking tasks, but existing works mainly focus on generating reports and summaries. In contrast, many enterprise tasks instead require an agent to identify concrete workflows which is a sequence of action-steps. For example, rather than summarizing budgeting policies, an agent should be able to determine the steps needed to answer a question such as: "How do I request new headcount given a fixed budget?". Therefore, we introduce DRFLOW, a benchmark for evaluating personalized workflows predicted by agents from heterogeneous sources. Each task requires the agent to identify relevant evidence from scattered sources, then use that evidence to predict the correct action-step sequence for the user's task. DRFLOW contains 100 tasks across five domains, with 1,246 reference workflow steps grounded in more than 3,900 sources. We define seven diagnostic metrics covering factual grounding, step recovery, structural ordering, condition resolution, and personalization. We further present DRFLOW-Agent (DRFA), a workflow-oriented reference agent to predict personalized workflow. We show that although DRFA improves over strong baseline agents (upto 10.02% average F1 score), there is substantial room for improvement remains across these workflow metrics, indicating that predicting complete and correct personalized workflows remains a challenging frontier for deep research.

Personalized presentation generation requires more than conditioning on a current prompt or template: agents must preserve stable user preferences across tasks, retain newly introduced preferences and constraints during multi-turn revision, and carry out local edits reliably. We propose MemSlides, a hierarchical memory framework for personalized presentation agents that separates long-term memory from working memory and further divides long-term memory into user profile memory and tool memory. User profile memory stores intent-conditioned profiles for round-0 personalization, working memory carries active preferences and session constraints across revision rounds, and tool memory stores reusable execution experience for reliable localized editing. MemSlides pairs this memory design with scoped slide-local revision, so targeted updates act on the smallest affected region instead of repeatedly regenerating the full deck. In controlled experiments, user profile memory improves persona-alignment judgments on a multi-persona, multi-intent profile bank, tool-memory injection improves closed-loop modify behavior in diagnostic matched-pair settings, and qualitative cases illustrate working memory's ability to carryover preferences. Taken together, these results suggest that effective personalization in presentation authoring depends on separating persistent user profiles, session-level working memory, and reusable execution experience across generation and localized revision.

Current evaluation paradigms for Large Language Model (LLM) personalization rely heavily on brittle surface-matching metrics or computationally expensive LLM-as-a-judge protocols, both of which lack interpretability. To address these limitations, we introduce Natural Language Inference Constraint Verification (NLICV), a scalable, semantically invariant framework that maps sentence meanings to truth-condition sets to verify personalization constraints via a Natural Language Inference (NLI) model. Moving beyond binary scoring, NLICV categorizes LLM behaviors into four distinct modes: personalization, generalization, sycophancy, and failure. Extensive experiments demonstrate that NLICV aligns closely with human annotations while drastically reducing the latency and token costs associated with LLM judges (up to 2100 inference speedup). Finally, through an ablation-based procedure, NLICV pinpoints the exact sentences driving the constraint verification, yielding faithful, understandable evidence for its evaluations.

User-side memory in LLMs is typically scored as a single "personalization" capability: given a user's history, is the output more user-aware? We show this aggregate metric hides opposite-direction failures. Memory factorises into at least three orthogonal axes -- behavioral consistency (style, voice), factual presence (recall facts in history), and factual absence (abstain when a fact is absent) -- and no single substrate wins all three. Comparing per-user gamma-LoRA (a small LoRA adapter trained on each user's history; gamma denotes per-user, not per-task) against BGE-large dense top-K retrieval on a controlled 50-user synthetic corpus and a real-data probe (LaMP-3), we find gamma-LoRA decisively wins behavioral style while RAG decisively wins factual absence -- and the same query-projection cells in attention layers 21-35 causally load-bear both effects in opposite directions (zeroing those LoRA weights raises absence-probe TPR by +33 pp and drops presence-probe TPR by 20 pp). On the more heavily RLHF-tuned Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct the asymmetry strengthens, not heals: parametric memory's behavioral advantage collapses while its absence-calibration deficit against retrieval widens -- an alignment tax on parametric user-memory. On real-data LaMP-3, gamma-LoRA underperforms a majority baseline; a 9-condition mitigation sweep diagnoses this as instruction-following collapse, not substrate failure (a 9x2 cross-product shows the eval-time {1..5} logit mask drives main_acc to >=0.995 on every recipe), and the best training-time fix replicates bit-identically on Llama. Finally, substrate-selection routing is question-classification, not calibration: a 110M DistilBERT on the question text alone beats every logit-based router. We contribute the diagnostic framework, the diagnosed real-data negative, the alignment-tax replication, and the routing-as-classification finding.

Does personalizing what a reader sees pay off, and where does it stop? Using a social web highlighter and a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users, which holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does), we map the shape and limits of personalization across reading altitudes. At the document altitude we give the clean, leakage-free, identity-controlled measurement that prior next-document evaluations could only upper-bound: a person's history identifies which documents in a co-reading neighborhood are theirs, with an own-versus-other gap of +0.169 against community negatives and +0.119 against topic-matched hard negatives (both highly significant); a content-based arm suggests the signal is not purely title-driven but is largely thematic. This is comparable to the span-level selection signal (+0.14) from our prior work: the selection signal is of comparable magnitude across altitudes (+0.12 to +0.17), most of it stable topic preference. At the sentence altitude, a two-stage personalized auto-highlight (an impersonal model proposes candidates, a personal model re-ranks them) does not improve on its impersonal baseline: two off-the-shelf zero-shot LLMs, including a frontier model, predict highlight locations worse than a lead baseline, and personal re-ranking is beaten by the salience order even on the highest-recall candidate pool, so the null is not merely a Stage-1 ceiling artifact. Measurable personalization appears primarily at the selection layer: modest (~+0.13), topic-dominated, with no reliable gain at the salience layer. We also surface a control-in-negatives bias that inflated our document gap to a spurious +0.227 until audited. Going beyond the shared salience layer may be better approached by aggregating individuals than by personalizing them harder.

Long-term memory for an LLM agent is more than retrieving the right passage at the right time. Current memory systems collapse belief revision, causal coupling, and cross-domain abstraction into a single retrieval surface tuned for surface recall, and consequently struggle on implicit personalisation that requires reasoning over how a user has evolved. We propose DCPM, which reorganises agent memory along a cognitive capability hierarchy ascending from raw inputs and atomic facts, through diachronic belief trajectories and identity, to domain schemas, latent intentions and cross-domain patterns. The hierarchy is driven by two processes inheriting the architectural split of dual-process theory: a synchronous daytime writer (System1) that records belief revisions as doubly linked supersedes chains, and an asynchronous nighttime engine (System2) that induces schemas and intentions and sweeps for cross-domain collisions abstracted into higher-level core schemas. On LongMemEval, PersonaMem and PersonaMem-v2, enabling System2 contributes most where the benchmark rewards implicit cross-session inference (up to +5.20 on PersonaMem-v2) and least on span recall, matching the architectural prediction.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled increasingly personalized interactions by adapting to users' preferences, contexts, and long-term histories. However, the mechanisms that enable personalization also expand the safety landscape in ways not systematically addressed by existing literature. Existing reviews typically focus either on personalization or safety, leaving their intersection largely unexplored. We present the first comprehensive, safety-aware review of personalized LLMs. We organize personalization along three dimensions-user representation, personalization paradigm, and evaluation-and introduce a unified taxonomy of safety risks. At the representation level, we analyze risks arising from diverse user representations. Across mainstream personalization paradigms, we delineate vulnerabilities inherent to prompting, retrieval augmentation, parameter fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, Mixture-of-Experts (MoE), pruning, agent frameworks, and multimodal personalization, and synthesize mitigation strategies across the model lifecycle. Beyond these fine-grained risks, we characterize paradigm-agnostic safety risks arising from personalized adaptation. We further summarize personalized datasets and evaluation methodologies. Through a case study of OpenClaw, we analyze deployment trends in personalized agent ecosystems. Our analysis reveals three structural inadequacies in existing research: safety is evaluated as user-invariant rather than relational, personalization techniques are analyzed in isolation rather than in composition, and evaluation frameworks cannot capture emergent long-term risks. By jointly examining personalized representations, personalization paradigms, safety risks, defenses, and evaluation methods, we provide a unified framework for developing safe personalized LLMs and highlight key directions for future research.

Social highlighters let people mark passages that matter to them. We ask how much of an individual is recoverable from these naturalistic traces, using a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users) that holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does. We separate generic salience (structure), crowd salience (what others marked), and personal salience (the individual residual). First, highlighting is social: which sentences you mark is predicted far better by the crowd than by structure or by a personal model, and even a well-estimated crowd, an information-privileged baseline that sees others' marks on the same document, beats a frontier LLM twin built from your other-document history; the within-document personal signal is at most a whisper (own-vs-other gap +0.017 by an embedding scorer, small but significant). Second, in sharp contrast, individuality lives in selection: asked which of the already-salient passages are yours, your own history is a strong, leakage-free predictor (gap +0.14). A topic decomposition shows this is largely stable thematic preference: it shrinks ~6-8x against a topically-matched peer, and a thin residual cannot be separated from finer topic. The non-obvious part is an asymmetry: under the same scorer the individual signal is ~6-8x weaker in salience than in selection. Methodologically, naive history-conditioning evaluations leak (the target's own marks enter the profile in ~42% of pairs, inflating personal scores by up to +0.15 AP) and small crowds overstate personalization; our results are leakage-free, use a dense crowd, and a model-matched control. Highlights carry a genuine individual signature, but a thin layer over a strong shared one, surfacing far more in which salient things a person selects than in what is salient.

Background: Consumer-facing large language models are now a common source of health information, and they interpret and personalize responses rather than retrieve them. Whether their responses vary across users is a clinical, equity, and governance question, sharpened by evidence that sycophantic responses can alter judgment and increase trust. Objective: To evaluate response variation and sycophancy in consumer-facing health LLMs under conditions resembling ordinary patient use. Methods: We constructed simulated user profiles differing in geography, browsing context, expressed beliefs, and social determinants of health, drawing on literature linking social context to health attitudes. We adapted validated instruments, including the Vaccination Attitudes Examination scale and reproductive attitudes scales, into multi-turn prompts designed to elicit clinically meaningful variation across users. Results: The evaluation encountered five linked barriers. Factual prompts produced stable responses that masked sycophancy emerging over multi-turn conversation. Browser-based interfaces did not disclose which signals influence outputs and could not be reset to a clean baseline. Large-scale testing was restricted by terms of service, rate limits, and bot detection. Accuracy-based criteria could not capture tone, framing, or omission, and LLM-as-judge methods risked shared alignment bias. Models changed without traceable version identifiers, preventing reliable replication. Conclusions: No reliable independent evaluation framework yet exists for examining how consumer-facing health LLMs behave in ordinary use. Oversight requires disclosure of personalization signals, stable version identifiers, researcher safe harbor programs, and post-deployment monitoring of health-related outputs.

Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data. It remains unclear how well current personalization systems work for real users. In this paper, we study the gap in LLM personalization performance when using synthetic versus human data. We collect human conversations (550 conversations) and judgments across three stages of personalization: extracting user attributes from conversations (5,949 judgments), pairing relevant attributes with new prompts (11,919), and incorporating relevant attributes into a personalized response (1,101). Incorporating human data reveals system limitations at each stage. Models struggle to extract attributes from human conversations, disagree with human judgments on relevant attributes, and generate personalized responses that humans judge no better than generic responses (though that LLM judges widely rate as better). We introduce two lightweight training-based interventions that shift automated personalization evaluation closer to human data in our first two stages. However, in our third stage we find that learned reward models achieve only modest correlation with human ratings, suggesting that human-aligned personalization quality judgments are difficult to model directly. Our collected data provides a foundation for studying how models should extract, select, and incorporate user information in ways that humans find useful.

Personalizing large language models (LLMs) has become a central challenge as LLMs are deployed across recommendation, search, dialogue, and content generation -- settings where the same query should yield different answers given different users. A promising route is to summarize each user's interaction history into a natural-language memory or profile and prepend it to the prompt to facilitate personalization. Existing methods learn such profile generators with explicit rewards derived from labeled downstream tasks, which are expensive and sparse as they require annotated supervision for every target task. In light of this challenge, we introduce Bidirectional User Modeling via Profiles (BUMP), a self-supervised framework that trains a profile generator without any downstream labels. Specifically, given a user's interaction history, we use GRPO to train an LLM to emit a free-form textual profile under a bidirectional in-batch ranking objective: a small LLM judge measures (i) how well the generated profile, used as a query, ranks the user's own held-out interactions above interactions from other users in the batch, and (ii) how well a held-out interaction, used as a query, ranks the user's own profile above profiles of other users. Both directions are scored with multi-positive NDCG and combined into a dense reward per rollout; other users in the batch supply free negatives, so every training example yields supervision from raw interaction logs alone. Evaluated on the LaMP benchmark, BUMP matches or outperforms closed-source APIs and prior methods relying on labeled rewards, while requiring no task label at training.

Persistent LLM agents require memory representations that make the formation of person understanding explicit across long term interaction. Existing agent memory methods emphasize information retention and retrieval, yet give limited account of how accumulated interaction evidence is abstracted into person understanding. We view this process as schema formation, where situated evidence is abstracted into reusable patterns and stable person level claims. We introduce PersonaTree, a structured lifecycle memory framework that realizes this view as a three level persona tree with explicit support paths from evidence to claims. PersonaTree maintains the tree through conservative writing, confidence guided consolidation, and query conditioned path retrieval, returning only the evidence depth required by each query. Across six person understanding and persistent memory benchmarks with three answer backbones, PersonaTree ranks first in 12 of 18 compact scores and reaches the top two in 16 settings. Ablations show that hierarchy improves abstract person understanding on KnowMe, while support path retrieval improves RealPref alignment under a comparable context budget.

Personalizing large language models requires adapting model behavior to individual users while preserving robustness and deployment-scale efficiency. Existing approaches typically personalize LLMs either at the input level, by retrieving user histories or constructing profile prompts, or at the parameter level, by maintaining user-specific parameter-efficient modules. The former makes personalization sensitive to retrieval quality and prompt design, whereas the latter incurs storage and maintenance costs that grow with the user population. To address these limitations, we propose TAP-PER (Temporal Attentive Prefix for PERsonalization), a prefix-based framework that encodes user preferences as learnable representations, avoiding the serialization of user histories into prompts and replacing heavy per-user adapters with lightweight user-state prefix embeddings. Inspired by personalized recommendation systems, TAP-PER decomposes user modeling into user-state and query-conditioned components, and incorporates temporal signals to capture the evolving nature of user interests. Experiments on six LaMP tasks show that TAP-PER consistently outperforms prompt-based and model-based baselines across classification, rating, and generation settings. Moreover, TAP-PER uses 130x fewer per-user parameters than OPPU and roughly half the total parameter footprint of PER-PCS at the 1,000-user scale, demonstrating scalable personalization without prompt-serialized histories or heavy per-user adapters.

Personalization is a crucial capability of modern language agents. However, current research primarily positions personalized agents as passive responders to user preferences, limiting their ability to interact with users and provide suggestions or guidance proactively. To systematically evaluate such proactive personalization in realistic interactions, we propose $Ψ$-Bench, a benchmark for assessing LLMs' ability to influence realistic users through conversation. We design three real-world interaction scenarios that involve persuasion in $Ψ$-Bench, and endow simulated clients with personal characteristics through explicit user profiles derived from dialogue histories. We evaluate 10 frontier LLMs on $Ψ$-Bench and find that while most models can produce coherent and reasonable arguments, even state-of-the-art models still leave considerable room for improvement in persuasion. We also find that providing access to client profiles yields an average performance gain of 18.24%, highlighting the importance of user-specific information for effective persuasion. Overall, our work highlights persona-sensitive influencing as a challenging yet practical direction for evaluating and developing more proactive personalized LLM agents. Codes are available at: https://github.com/Hanpx20/Psi-Bench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse domains, yet personalizing their outputs to individual users remains an open challenge. Existing approaches predominantly adopt a flat behavioral paradigm, aggregating user behaviors without an explicit account of how they are organized into deeper behavioral structures. In this work, we draw on Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Practice to propose PHF (Practice-Habitus-Field), a sociologically grounded framework that reconceptualizes LLM personalization through three hierarchical levels: individual behaviors as practices, their temporal accumulation into stable dispositions as habitus, and shared regularities across similar users as fields. We instantiate PHF through $\mathrm{PHF}_{\text{Compass}}$, a lightweight and model-agnostic implementation based on a frozen LLM. Experiments on the Language Model Personalization (LaMP) benchmark demonstrate consistent improvements across diverse tasks, while further analyses validate the interpretability and extensibility of the learned behavioral structures.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in long-term interactions with users, empathy has become an increasingly important capability. However, existing research overlooks the influence of users' personality traits on empathetic strategies during long-term interactions. To address this gap, we introduce the task of personalized empathy, which focuses on adapting empathetic strategies according to users' personalized characteristics derived from history. To study and enhance this capability, we construct PersonaEmp, a personalized empathy dataset built from long-term user-AI interactions, featuring rich user histories, persona information, and empathy-seeking queries. We further propose PereGRM, a reward modeling framework that combines the empathy evaluation structure with dynamic evaluation criteria generation for fine-grained reward modeling. Experimental results across different settings and multiple judge models show that PereGRM consistently achieves the strongest performance improvements, indicating its effectiveness for enhancing personalized empathetic capabilities.