The paper "Evaluating Style-Personalized Text Generation: Challenges and Directions" examines the difficulties of assessing text that is tailored to individual users’ styles. It critiques common metrics such as BLEU, embeddings, and LLM-as-judges, and introduces a style discrimination benchmark covering domain discrimination, authorship attribution, and LLM-generated personalized versus non-personalized discrimination across eight writing tasks. The study finds that ensembles of diverse evaluation metrics outperform single-evaluator approaches and offers guidance for reliable assessment of style-personalized generation.
By Anubhav Jangra, Bahareh Sarrafzadeh, Silviu Cucerzan, Adrian de Wynter, Sujay Kumar Jauhar
The paper introduces a style-aware paraphrasing method for text anonymization that leverages pretrained large language models to build compact stylistic profiles from minimal samples and rewrite text to suppress identifiable style markers while preserving meaning. It demonstrates that this approach reduces authorship attribution F1 scores by 60‑70% on blog and review datasets, outperforming both differential privacy‑based and non‑DP baselines, and maintains content quality and readability.
By Ahmed Sohair Khan, Estrid He, Monica Wachowicz, Elham Naghizade
arXiv:2608. 19746v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personalized text generation aims to make LLMs write in a specific individual's style, yet existing benchmarks measure task accuracy or preference alignment rather than whether the model's output actually resembles the target author's writing.
By Yash Ganpat Sawant
The paper introduces a register-aware framework to evaluate how human-like large language models (LLMs) are, focusing on linguistic feature distributions rather than factual correctness. It uses Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and 67 Biber lexico‑grammatical features to compare LLM‑generated texts with human reference corpora across different registers. Experiments on seven instruction‑tuned, open‑source models across five English datasets show that all LLMs deviate from human baselines, with closeness to human language varying by register and not by model size.
By Bj\"orn Nieth, Marianna Gracheva, Michaela Mahlberg, Bjoern Eskofier, Emmanuelle Salin
arXiv:2608.28833v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: While Large language models (LLMs) incorporate user personalization signals to improve usability and helpfulness, they increasingly shift from providin...
By Yumeng Wang, Yuchen Wu, Cheng Qian, Zhiyuan Fan, Hyeonjeong Ha, Shujin Wu, Jiayu Liu, Heng Ji, Ge Wang
Large language models (LLMs) often shift their outputs in response to implicit demographic cues even when users never state a demographic identity. Previous work has documented this behavior, but the connection between these behavioral changes and the model's internal activations remains unclear.
arXiv:2608. 11735v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often shift their outputs in response to implicit demographic cues even when users never state a demographic identity.
By Yueru Yan, Siqi Wu, Thai Le
The study investigates bias in large language model (LLM) judges by having ten LLMs evaluate narrative constraint selections rather than generated text. Results show that self-preference largely disappears under blind evaluation when quality and evaluator severity are controlled, but self- and other-labels alone shift scores bidirectionally when quality is matched. The authors conclude that authorship attribution drives evaluation bias and that open-ended, ground‑truth‑free tasks can effectively study LLM judge behavior.
By Songeun Chae, Min Kim, Donghoon Jung, Seojin Choi, Seohyon Jung
The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to different demographic cues—such as names—when users seek advice, focusing on race and gender in a U.S. context. It finds that using different cues for the same group leads to only partially overlapping changes in model responses, producing inconsistent conclusions about personalization and unstable bias metrics. The authors argue that LLMs react to linguistic signals tied to cues rather than to stable demographic categories, and they call for evaluations that use multiple cues and consider underlying mechanisms.
By Manuel Tonneau, Neil K. R. Sehgal, Niyati Malhotra, Sharif Kazemi, Victor Orozco-Olvera, Ana Mar\'ia Mu\~noz Boudet, Lakshmi Subramanian, Samuel P. Fraiberger, Sharath Chandra Guntuku, Valentin Hofmann
arXiv:2608.23124v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Personalized text generation for authors and literary writing is essential for applications such as adaptive writing assistants, creative support too...
By Jinghui Zhang, Lang Gao, Ao Li, Mingzhe Li, Ruihong Zeng, Zirui Song, Kentaro Inui, Xiuying Chen
Personalized text generation for authors and literary writing is essential for applications such as adaptive writing assistants, creative support tools, and computational literary analysis. However, e...
arXiv:2505. 14608v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite considerable progress in the development of machine-text detectors, the ease with which machine-text can be manipulated to evade detection has led to suggestions that the problem is inherently intractable.
By Rafael Rivera Soto, Barry Chen, Nicholas Andrews