Evaluating LLM Personalization via Semantic Constraint Verification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.16368v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 08:04:56 GMT
• Title: Evaluating LLM Personalization via Semantic Constraint Verification
• Abstract summary: We introduce Natural Language Inference Constraint Verification (NLICV)<n>NLICV maps sentence meanings to truth-condition sets to verify personalization constraints via a Natural Language Inference (NLI) model.<n>Experiments demonstrate that NLICV aligns closely with human annotations while drastically reducing the latency and token costs associated with LLM judges.
• Score: 25.539904066738288
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• ActTraitBench: Quantifying the Knowledge-Decision Gap in Large Language Models via Human-Grounded Behavioral Validation [8.82034003345674]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, but often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this asymmetry due to limited construct validity, multi-dimensional entanglement, and distributional biases.<n>We propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T11:40:35Z)
• Teaching Language Models to Check Grounded Claim Factuality with Human Test-Taking Strategies [0.9867902290081937]
  Grounded claim factuality checking is important for large language model (LLM) applications such as retrieval-augmented generation.<n>We address this by formulating grounded claim factuality checking as a true/false reading comprehension task.<n>Our method reduces token usage by over 80% compared to unguided open-ended reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T10:11:42Z)
• Learning and Enforcing Context-Sensitive Control for LLMs [48.58004364546273]
  We introduce a framework that automatically learns context-sensitive constraints from Large Language Models interactions.<n>Experiments demonstrate that our method enables even small LLMs (1B parameters) to learn and generate with perfect constraint adherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T14:50:03Z)
• Is my model perplexed for the right reason? Contrasting LLMs' Benchmark Behavior with Token-Level Perplexity [6.285055089721361]
  We introduce a principled interpretability framework based on token-level perplexity to test whether models rely on linguistically relevant cues.<n>Our method enables precise, hypothesis-driven analysis without relying on unstable feature-attribution techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T08:00:55Z)
• FORESTLLM: Large Language Models Make Random Forest Great on Few-shot Tabular Learning [20.27406245916013]
  We propose a novel framework that unifies the structural inductive biases of decision forests with the semantic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method is two-fold. First, we introduce a semantic splitting criterion in which the LLM evaluates candidate partitions based on their coherence over both labeled and unlabeled data, enabling the induction of more robust and generalizable tree structures under few-shot supervision.<n>Second, we propose a one-time in-context inference mechanism for leaf node stabilization, where the LLM distills the decision path and its supporting examples into a concise, deterministic prediction, replacing noisy empirical estimates with semantically informed outputs
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T14:08:51Z)
• Refining Sentence Embedding Model through Ranking Sentences Generation with Large Language Models [60.00178316095646]
  Sentence embedding is essential for many NLP tasks, with contrastive learning methods achieving strong performance using datasets like NLI.<n>Recent studies leverage large language models (LLMs) to generate sentence pairs, reducing annotation dependency.<n>We propose a method for controlling the generation direction of LLMs in the latent space. Unlike unconstrained generation, the controlled approach ensures meaningful semantic divergence.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that our method achieves new SOTA performance with a modest cost in ranking sentence synthesis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T12:07:53Z)
• Attribute Controlled Fine-tuning for Large Language Models: A Case Study on Detoxification [76.14641982122696]
  We propose a constraint learning schema for fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) with attribute control. We show that our approach leads to an LLM that produces fewer inappropriate responses while achieving competitive performance on benchmarks and a toxicity detection task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T23:38:58Z)
• Evaluating the Correctness of Inference Patterns Used by LLMs for Judgment [53.17596274334017]
  We evaluate the correctness of the detailed inference patterns of an LLM behind its seemingly correct outputs.<n>Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the inference patterns used by the LLM for the legal judgment may represent misleading or irrelevant logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T08:33:39Z)
• CSS: Contrastive Semantic Similarity for Uncertainty Quantification of LLMs [1.515687944002438]
  We propose Contrastive Semantic Similarity, a module to obtain similarity features for measuring uncertainty for text pairs. We conduct extensive experiments with three large language models (LLMs) on several benchmark question-answering datasets. Results show that our proposed method performs better in estimating reliable responses of LLMs than comparable baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T11:35:44Z)
• FollowBench: A Multi-level Fine-grained Constraints Following Benchmark for Large Language Models [79.62191017182518]
  FollowBench is a benchmark for Fine-grained Constraints Following Benchmark for Large Language Models. We introduce a Multi-level mechanism that incrementally adds a single constraint to the initial instruction at each increased level. By evaluating 13 popular LLMs on FollowBench, we highlight the weaknesses of LLMs in instruction following and point towards potential avenues for future work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T12:32:38Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)

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.