Do LLMs Recognize Your Latent Preferences? A Benchmark for Latent Information Discovery in Personalized Interaction
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at producing broadly relevant text, but this generality becomes a limitation when user-specific preferences are required, such as recommending restaurants or planning travel. In these scenarios, users rarely articulate every preference explicitly; instead, much of what they care about remains latent, waiting to be inferred. This raises a fundamental question: Can LLMs uncover and reason about such latent information through conversation? We address this problem by introducing a unified benchmark for evaluating latent information discovery - the ability of LLMs to reveal and utilize hidden user attributes through multi-turn interaction. The benchmark spans three progressively realistic settings: the classic 20 Questions game, Personalized Question Answering, and Personalized Text Summarization. All tasks share a tri-agent framework (User, Assistant, Judge) enabling turn-level evaluation of elicitation and adaptation. Our results reveal that while LLMs can indeed surface latent information through dialogue, their success varies dramatically with context: from 32% to 98%, depending on task complexity, topic, and number of hidden attributes. This benchmark provides the first systematic framework for studying latent information discovery in personalized interaction, highlighting that effective preference inference remains an open frontier for building truly adaptive AI systems.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Oct 2025.
Builds on
8 of 17 references.
References · 8
- 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
- 2023LaMP: When Large Language Models Meet Personalizationcited by 437
- 2024MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialoguescited by 250
- 2025Do LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMscited by 148
- 2022Large Language Models Meet NL2Code: A Surveycited by 138
- 2025A Survey of LLM-based Agents in Medicine: How far are we from Baymax?cited by 85
- 2025PersonaLens: A Benchmark for Personalization Evaluation in Conversational AI Assistantscited by 48
- 2023Probing the Multi-turn Planning Capabilities of LLMs via 20 Question Gamescited by 24
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanismscited by 21
- 2026Toward Personalized LLM-Powered Agents: Foundations, Evaluation, and Future Directionscited by 14
- 2026Decisive: Guiding User Decisions with Optimal Preference Elicitation from Unstructured Documentscited by 0
- 2026From Storage to Experience: A Survey on the Evolution of LLM Agent Memory Mechanisms7 May 2026
- 2026Decisive: Guiding User Decisions with Optimal Preference Elicitation from Unstructured Documents20 Apr 2026
- 2026Toward Personalized LLM-Powered Agents: Foundations, Evaluation, and Future Directions26 Feb 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Towards Natural Personalization: Evaluating Long-Horizon Preference Following in Personalized User-LLM Interactions
- 2025CUPID: Evaluating Personalized and Contextualized Alignment of LLMs from Interactions
- 2026Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences
- 2026Learning Transferable Latent User Preferences for Human-Aligned Decision Making
- 2024PersonalLLM: Tailoring LLMs to Individual Preferences
- 2026Ask to Be Sure: Informative Interactions for Confident Multi-Turn LLM Recommendation
- 2024On the Way to LLM Personalization: Learning to Remember User Conversations
- 2025POPI: Personalizing LLMs via Optimized Natural Language Preference Inference