Beyond Recall: Behavioral Specification as an Interpretive Layer for AI Personalization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.
Builds on
16 of 17 references.
References · 16
- 2015Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Networkcited by 10,324
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systemscited by 1,389
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2024Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agentscited by 830
- 2025Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memorycited by 779
- 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 707
- 2025Zep: A Temporal Knowledge Graph Architecture for Agent Memorycited by 400
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 345
- 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 326
- 2025Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scalecited by 178
- 2024PersonaGym: Evaluating Persona Agents and LLMscited by 97
4 more
- 2026The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Modelscited by 90
- 2025Interaction Context Often Increases Sycophancy in LLMscited by 26
- 2025Twin-2K-500: A dataset for building digital twins of over 2,000 people based on their answers to over 500 questionscited by 22
- 2026AlpsBench: An LLM Personalization Benchmark for Real-Dialogue Memorization and Preference Alignmentcited by 10
Built on by
Not cited yet.