mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Privacy Personalization Trade offs in LLMs: The Impact of Stylometric Signal Reduction on User-Specific Text Generation

arXiv 2609.22112 ↗First posted 18 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to generate user-specific text with high stylistic fidelity. However, the personal data that enables such personalization frequently embeds demographic, cultural, and stylistic markers that raises concerns about stylometric re- identification. This paper investigates whether reducing identifiable stylistic signals affects personalization in text generation by LLMs. We introduce a controlled framework to isolate stylometric signals in LLM personalization using the LaMP-7 Twitter benchmark. Experiments on 250 sampled users compare two settings: paraphrasing conditioned on the original profile and paraphrasing conditioned on an anonymized converted profile in which demographic identifiers, cultural references, personal details, and informal linguistic cues have been systematically neutralized. Outputs are assessed by two independent LLM judges and a complementary human evaluation. Our pairwise evaluation shows that outputs conditioned on original profiles are nearly indistinguishable from human-authored ground truth, indicating that modern LLMs can closely reproduce an author's writing style with sufficient fidelity. In contrast, preference for model outputs with anonymized profiles drops to 13.0% on average, while semantic context preservation remains high at 94.8%. A study with human evaluators confirms the same pattern. These findings reveal a clear privacy-personalization trade-off and highlight the need for privacy-aware personalization methods that retain meaning while suppressing identifying stylistic signals.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 31 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  3. 2023LaMP: When Large Language Models Meet Personalizationcited by 437
  4. 2023Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Modelscited by 285
  5. 2024Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 258
  6. 2023Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluatorscited by 150
  7. 2024Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?cited by 100
  8. 2024Optimization Methods for Personalizing Large Language Models through Retrieval Augmentationcited by 99
  9. 2023Pearl: Personalizing Large Language Model Writing Assistants with Generation-Calibrated Retrieverscited by 92
  10. 2021The Topic Confusion Task: A Novel Scenario for Authorship Attributioncited by 17
  11. 2022PART: Pre-trained Authorship Representation Transformercited by 13
  12. 2024DePrompt: Desensitization and Evaluation of Personal Identifiable Information in Large Language Model Promptscited by 9
3 more
  1. 2025Automated Profile Inference with Language Model Agentscited by 9
  2. 2020Forensic Authorship Analysis of Microblogging Texts Using N-Grams and Stylometric Featurescited by 3
  3. 2026De-Anonymization at Scale via Tournament-Style Attributioncited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.