mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences

arXiv 2604.18943 ↗First posted 21 Apr 2026cs.AI cs.CL cs.HCcited by 3

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only ρ = 0.04 (57% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation (ρ = 0.43). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 9 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2026.

Builds on

9 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference7 Mar

Other references · 8

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  3. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  4. 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 500
  5. 2024MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialoguescited by 250
  6. 2021Expanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systemscited by 124
  7. 2024FASTopic: Pretrained Transformer is a Fast, Adaptive, Stable, and Transferable Topic Modelcited by 35
  8. 2023Learning Interpretable Style Embeddings via Prompting LLMscited by 30

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Dropping Just a Handful of Preferences Can Change Top Large Language Model Rankings
  2. 2025Do LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMs
  3. 2025CUPID: Evaluating Personalized and Contextualized Alignment of LLMs from Interactions
  4. 2024PersonalLLM: Tailoring LLMs to Individual Preferences
  5. 2025A Survey on Personalized and Pluralistic Preference Alignment in Large Language Models
  6. 2026APM: Evaluating Style Personalization in LLMs with Arbitrary Preference Mappings
  7. 2024Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences
  8. 2025Personalize Your LLM: Fake it then Align it