# PersEvalBench: Can LLM Evaluators Judge Contextually Appropriate Use of Persona Information?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19314 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19314/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17753/) (2024)
- [Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.07243/) (2018)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Kimi K2.5: Visual Agentic Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02276/) (2026)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [LaMP: When Large Language Models Meet Personalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11406/) (2023)
- [Towards Scalable Multi-domain Conversational Agents: The Schema-Guided Dialogue Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.05855/) (2019)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14225/) (2025)
- [Do LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09597/) (2025)
- [Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11657/) (2024)
- [PersonaLens: A Benchmark for Personalization Evaluation in Conversational AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09902/) (2025)
- [CIMemories: A Compositional Benchmark for Contextual Integrity of Persistent Memory in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.14937/) (2025)
- [OP-Bench: Benchmarking Over-Personalization for Memory-Augmented Personalized Conversational Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.13722/) (2026)
- [Towards Natural Personalization: Evaluating Long-Horizon Preference Following in Personalized User-LLM Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04191/) (2026)
- [AlpsBench: An LLM Personalization Benchmark for Real-Dialogue Memorization and Preference Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.26680/) (2026)
- [How Does Personalized Memory Shape LLM Behavior? Benchmarking Rational Preference Utilization in Personalized Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.16621/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM) evaluators are increasingly used to assess personalized assistants, yet whether they can reliably judge personalization has rarely been tested. We introduce PersEvalBench, a benchmark testing whether an evaluator can recognize appropriate and inappropriate uses of user history. It contains 403 multi-episode scenarios where user information should persist, transfer, or cease to apply. The benchmark covers nine controlled error subtypes across three families: under-personalization, over-personalization, and misapplied-state errors. Human audits confirm that generated errors match their intended types and that the prescribed uses of user information are reasonable. Across five LLM evaluators, recognition of controlled personalization errors remains limited even with the full dialogue history. On the human-evaluated subset, under-personalization shows the largest gap: humans recognize 94.4% of these errors, compared with 63.9% for the strongest reported evaluator. Evaluators often recognize that a response is problematic but reverse the error direction, mistaking failure to follow an applicable preference (UNDER) for use of an inapplicable preference (OVER). Easier evidence access offers little help: highlighting the relevant history turns raises error recognition only slightly, suggesting that the remaining difficulty lies in judging what role that information should play in the response.