PersonaFeedback: A Large-scale Human-annotated Benchmark For Personalization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12915v1
• Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 17:19:19 GMT
• Title: PersonaFeedback: A Large-scale Human-annotated Benchmark For Personalization
• Authors: Meiling Tao, Chenghao Zhu, Dongyi Ding, Tiannan Wang, Yuchen Eleanor Jiang, Wangchunshu Zhou,
• Abstract summary: We introduce PersonaFeedback, a new benchmark that directly evaluates LLMs' ability to provide personalized responses.<n>Unlike existing benchmarks that require models to infer implicit user personas from historical interactions, PersonaFeedback decouples persona inference from personalization.<n> PersonaFeedback consists of 8298 human-annotated test cases, which are categorized into easy, medium, and hard tiers.
• Score: 25.45861816665351
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid improvement in the general capabilities of LLMs, LLM personalization, i.e., how to build LLM systems that can generate personalized responses or services that are tailored to distinct user personas, has become an increasingly important research and engineering problem. However, unlike many new challenging benchmarks being released for evaluating the general/reasoning capabilities, the lack of high-quality benchmarks for evaluating LLM personalization greatly hinders progress in this field. To address this, we introduce PersonaFeedback, a new benchmark that directly evaluates LLMs' ability to provide personalized responses given pre-defined user personas and queries. Unlike existing benchmarks that require models to infer implicit user personas from historical interactions, PersonaFeedback decouples persona inference from personalization, focusing on evaluating the model's ability to generate responses tailored to explicit personas. PersonaFeedback consists of 8298 human-annotated test cases, which are categorized into easy, medium, and hard tiers based on the contextual complexity of the user personas and the difficulty in distinguishing subtle differences between two personalized responses. We conduct comprehensive evaluations across a wide range of models. The empirical results reveal that even state-of-the-art LLMs that can solve complex real-world reasoning tasks could fall short on the hard tier of PersonaFeedback where even human evaluators may find the distinctions challenging. Furthermore, we conduct an in-depth analysis of failure modes across various types of systems, demonstrating that the current retrieval-augmented framework should not be seen as a de facto solution for personalization tasks. All benchmark data, annotation protocols, and the evaluation pipeline will be publicly available to facilitate future research on LLM personalization.

Related papers

• A Personalized Conversational Benchmark: Towards Simulating Personalized Conversations [112.81207927088117]
  PersonaConvBench is a benchmark for evaluating personalized reasoning and generation in multi-turn conversations with large language models (LLMs)<n>We benchmark several commercial and open-source LLMs under a unified prompting setup and observe that incorporating personalized history yields substantial performance improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T09:13:22Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• PersoBench: Benchmarking Personalized Response Generation in Large Language Models [6.8046587254152735]
  We present a new benchmark, PersoBench, to evaluate the personalization ability of large language models (LLMs) in persona-aware dialogue generation. Our analysis, conducted on three well-known persona-aware datasets, evaluates multiple dimensions of response quality, including fluency, diversity, coherence, and personalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T07:29:41Z)
• Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text [12.879551933541345]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating human-like conversations. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE are inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T16:01:45Z)
• PersLLM: A Personified Training Approach for Large Language Models [66.16513246245401]
  We propose PersLLM, a framework for better data construction and model tuning.<n>For insufficient data usage, we incorporate strategies such as Chain-of-Thought prompting and anti-induction.<n>For rigid behavior patterns, we design the tuning process and introduce automated DPO to enhance the specificity and dynamism of the models' personalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T08:13:22Z)
• Few-shot Personalization of LLMs with Mis-aligned Responses [40.0349773257245]
  This paper proposes a new approach for a few-shot personalization of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our key idea is to learn a set of personalized prompts for each user by progressively improving the prompts using LLMs.<n>During an iterative process of prompt improvement, we incorporate the contexts of mis-aligned responses by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T18:29:12Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments.<n>We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data.<n>We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.