跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.39550 · v1

Beyond Preference Following: Benchmarking Profile-Query Arbitration in Personalized Text Transformation

首次提交 2026-10-29 15:50
版本更新 2026-10-29 15:50
雷达观测 2026-10-30 13:28
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Writing assistants use persistent preferences to personalize responses, but these can conflict with the current request. Responses can meet every requirement yet serve the task poorly, while task failures need not involve following a conflicting preference. We introduce Profile Conflict Arbitration (PCA-Bench), a benchmark of 64 rewriting tasks and 256 task-preference pairs. We construct these pairs by varying the profile preference for each fixed text and request, covering different relations between the preference and the request. We assess whether responses meet requirements, how well they achieve the request's goals, and whether they follow preferences. Across three LLMs, we find that when preferences compete with task goals, a higher success rate in meeting both requirements and preferences does not mean better responses: it can come with a greater quality loss compared with responses without a profile. Similar rates of preference following do not imply the same ability to meet the current task's requirements when preferences conflict with them.

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-29 15:50 · 最新观测版本

Beyond Preference Following: Benchmarking Profile-Query Arbitration in Personalized Text Transformation

Writing assistants use persistent preferences to personalize responses, but these can conflict with the current request. Responses can meet every requirement yet serve the task poorly, while task failures need not involve following a conflicting preference. We introduce Profile Conflict Arbitration (PCA-Bench), a benchmark of 64 rewriting tasks and 256 task-preference pairs. We construct these pairs by varying the profile preference for each fixed text and request, covering different relations between the preference and the request. We assess whether responses meet requirements, how well they achieve the request's goals, and whether they follow preferences. Across three LLMs, we find that when preferences compete with task goals, a higher success rate in meeting both requirements and preferences does not mean better responses: it can come with a greater quality loss compared with responses without a profile. Similar rates of preference following do not imply the same ability to meet the current task's requirements when preferences conflict with them.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗