Benchmarking the Personalization Capabilities of Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Personalization is classically a two-party problem: a sender chooses what to say, and a receiver with independent objectives decides whether to act. A salesperson pitching the same analytics product leads with HIPAA compliance for a hospital and real-time reporting for a retailer, expecting a different argument to work on each. Existing LLM personalization benchmarks measure a narrower, one-party property: whether output matches the preferences of the same user it serves-sender and receiver being the same, as when RLHF aligns an assistant to its own user. The two-party case is harder to study automatically, since it needs ground truth linking specific content to an observed receiver action. Sales outreach provides this: a message written for one prospect, recorded against whether it produced a reply, a call, or a closed deal. We introduce SDR-Arena, a framework for benchmarking two-party generative personalization at scale, and SDR-Bench, a public corpus of 50,000 customer success stories across 22 industries and 3500 enterprises. Given only pre-outcome information, an agent must reconstruct the arguments that won the deal, scored by a weighted nugget-recall metric (WCS). The best model, Claude Sonnet 4.6, reaches 55.8% WCS indicating it recovers only half the winning content-a plateau we observe across model families that costly deep-research pipelines do not close. An ablation shows the cause is retrieval, not reasoning: models improve substantially given the facts a human researcher would gather, but rarely find them through web search alone. Two studies with professional SDRs support the metric: only 48% of generated pitches were rated usable without editing, and WCS yields model rankings consistent with evaluation against expert strategies authored independently of any model output.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2026.
Builds on
11 of 30 references.
References · 11
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2018Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?cited by 828
- 2023LaMP: When Large Language Models Meet Personalizationcited by 437
- 2024Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Modelscited by 154
- 2023When Large Language Models Meet Personalization: Perspectives of Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 90
- 2025PersonaMem-v2: Towards Personalized Intelligence via Learning Implicit User Personas and Agentic Memorycited by 88
- 2025PersonaLens: A Benchmark for Personalization Evaluation in Conversational AI Assistantscited by 48
- 2025The Great Nugget Recall: Automating Fact Extraction and RAG Evaluation with Large Language Modelscited by 24
- 2025A Personalized Conversational Benchmark: Towards Simulating Personalized Conversationscited by 17
- 2024PersoBench: Benchmarking Personalized Response Generation in Large Language Modelscited by 13
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Re-Centering Humans in LLM Personalization
- 2026Rethinking Personalization in Large Language Models at the Token Level
- 2026Personalization Increases Affective Alignment but Has Role-Dependent Effects on Epistemic Independence in LLMs
- 2026Large Language Models Should Learn Personalized Rather Than Aggregated Human Preferences
- 2026Psi-Bench: Evaluating Persona-Sensitive Influencing in Persuasive Dialogues
- 2026Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization
- 2026LATTE: Forecasting Peer Anchored Preference Trajectories for Personalized LLM Generation
- 2026Synthetic Interaction Data for Scalable Personalization in Large Language Models