The DOI matches its DataCite record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 26 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A Survey of Personalized Large Language Models: Progress and Future Directions
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in handling general knowledge tasks, yet they struggle with user-specific personalization, such as understanding individual emotions, writing styles, and preferences. Personalized Large Language Models (PLLMs) tackle these challenges by leveraging individual user data, such as user profiles, historical dialogues, content, and interactions, to deliver responses that are contextually relevant and tailored to each user's specific needs. This is a highly valuable research topic, as PLLMs can significantly enhance user satisfaction and have broad applications in conversational agents, recommendation systems, emotion recognition, medical assistants, and more. This survey reviews recent advancements in PLLMs from three technical perspectives: prompting for personalized context (input level), finetuning for personalized adapters (model level), and alignment for personalized preferences (objective level). To provide deeper insights, we also discuss current limitations and outline several promising directions for future research. Updated information about this survey can be found at the https://github.com/JiahongLiu21/Awesome-Personalized-Large-Language-Models.
Overview
CoChat Summary
TL;DR
This survey organizes recent work on Personalized Large Language Models (PLLMs) into three technical levels: personalized prompting, personalized adaptation, and personalized alignment. It reviews representative methods, discusses limitations, and outlines future directions including multimodal personalization, edge computing, lifelong updating, and trustworthiness.
Key findings
- PLLMs are defined as LLMs that condition responses on both a query \(q\) and user-specific data \(C_u\), aiming to predict \(y = \arg\max_y P(y \mid q, C_u)\).
- The survey proposes a taxonomy with three levels: input-level personalized prompting (profile-augmented, retrieval-augmented, soft-fused), model-level personalized adaptation (one PEFT for all users vs. one PEFT per user), and objective-level personalized alignment (data construction and optimization).
- Reported dataset/benchmark examples include 3,310 user personas expanded through self-generation and filtering, 197k system messages in the MULTIFACETED COLLECTION dataset, and the PRISM Alignment Dataset mapping 1,500 participants from 75 countries to feedback from live interactions with 21 LLMs.
- The paper notes that personalized alignment methods are typically limited to a small number of predefined preference dimensions, e.g., three, and that real-world users may have unknown preference vectors with only interaction history available.
Methods
- Survey/position paper: it proposes a structured taxonomy and systematically reviews state-of-the-art PLLM methods from three technical perspectives: prompting for personalized context (input level), finetuning for personalized adapters (model level), and alignment for personalized preferences (objective level).
- The review covers representative methods, datasets, and benchmarks, with additional analysis papers, datasets, and benchmarks summarized in a GitHub repo due to space limitations.
- Main analysis is qualitative synthesis: it compares method families, discusses pros and cons, and outlines future research directions rather than conducting primary experiments.
Limitations
- The paper states limitations including data privacy and bias, complex multisource user data, underexplored multimodal personalization, edge computing resource constraints, edge-cloud synchronization, efficient adaptation to base-model updates, lifelong updating/catastrophic forgetting, and trustworthiness.
- Method-specific limitations stated in the text include prompting methods lacking deeper personalization analysis and global knowledge access, PEFT methods risking overfitting with limited or noisy user data, and personalized alignment being limited to small predefined preference dimensions with unknown real-world preference vectors.
- Evident from the text: as a survey, it does not provide a quantitative meta-analysis or unified empirical comparison; it also defers some analysis papers, datasets, and benchmarks to an external GitHub repo.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 Valid · 0 Not valid · 20 Not checked · 21 Own results and interpretations
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Personalized Soups [Jang et al., 2023] and Reward Soups [Rame et al., 2024] address the challenge of RL from personalized human feedback by first training multiple policy models with distinct preferences independently and then merging their parameters post-hoc during inference.”
§ A Survey of Personalized Large Language Models: Progress and Future Directions > 5.2 Personalized Alignment Optimization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jang et al., 2023 source
- Not matchedcites Rame et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Wu et al. [2024c] constructs a dataset for aligning LLMs with individual preferences by initially creating a diverse pool of 3,310 user personas, which are expanded through iterative self-generation and filtering.”
§ A Survey of Personalized Large Language Models: Progress and Future Directions > 5.1 Personalized Alignment Data Construction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wu et al., 2024c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach allows for the reuse of the standard RLHF pipeline.”
§ A Survey of Personalized Large Language Models: Progress and Future Directions > 5.2 Personalized Alignment Optimization
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“MODPO [Zhou et al., 2023] introduces a novel RL-free algorithm extending Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) for managing multiple alignment objectives.”
§ A Survey of Personalized Large Language Models: Progress and Future Directions > 5.2 Personalized Alignment Optimization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Zhou et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another strategy for MORL is to consider ad-hoc combinations of multiple trained policy LLMs during the decoding phase to achieve personalization.”
§ A Survey of Personalized Large Language Models: Progress and Future Directions > 5.2 Personalized Alignment Optimization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jang et al., 2023 source
- Not matchedcites Rame et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
10 more claims
Create a free account to see all 41 claims and to verify the 12 references still open.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
Citations
Cites
LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models
Hu, E. J., Shen, Y., Wallis, P., Allen-Zhu, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., Wang, L., & Chen, W. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.09685 · Cited by 13,453
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
A Survey of Large Language Models
Zhao, W. X., Zhou, K., Li, J., Tang, T., Dong, Z., Hou, Y., Zhang, B., Min, Y., Zhang, J., Liu, P., et al. (2026) · Frontiers of Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s11704-026-60308-3 · Cited by 2,093
DeepSeek-R1 incentivizes reasoning in LLMs through reinforcement learning
Guo, D., Yang, D., Zhang, H., Song, J., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Zhang, R., Ma, S., Bi, X., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09422-z · Cited by 1,701
Self-citationScaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models
Chung, H. W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y., Fedus, W., Li, Y., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 · Cited by 1,441
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey
Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., Dai, Y., Sun, J., Wang, M., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.10997 · Cited by 876
A Survey on Mixture of Experts in Large Language Models
Cai, W., Jiang, J., Wang, F., Tang, J., Kim, S., & Huang, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2025.3554028 · Cited by 583
Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., DasSarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.05862 · Cited by 442
GLM-130B: An Open Bilingual Pre-trained Model
Zeng, A., Liu, X., Du, Z., Wang, Z., Lai, H., Ding, M., Yang, Z., Xu, Y., Zheng, W., Xia, X., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.02414 · Cited by 281
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Lan- guage models are few-shot learners. Proc. of NeurIPS, 2020.
- Weilin Cai, Juyong Jiang, Fan Wang, Jing Tang, Sunghun Kim, and Jiayi Huang. A survey on mixture of experts. arXiv:2407.06204, 2024. · arXiv
- Jin Chen, Zheng Liu, Xu Huang, Chenwang Wu, Qi Liu, Gangwei Jiang, Yuanhao Pu, Yuxuan Lei, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, et al. When large language models meet per- sonalization: Perspectives of challenges and opportunities. World Wide Web, 27(4):42, 2024.
- Bhavana Dalvi, Oyvind Tafjord, and Peter Clark. Towards teachable reasoning systems: Using a dynamic memory of user feedback for continual system improvement. In Proc. of EMNLP, 2022.
- Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capa- bility in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv:2501.12948, 2025. · arXiv
- Liam Hebert, Krishna Sayana, Ambarish Jash, Alexandros Karatzoglou, Sukhdeep S Sodhi, Sumanth Doddapaneni, Yanli Cai, and Dima Kuzmin. Persoma: Personalized soft prompt adapter architecture for personalized language prompting. CoRR, 2024.
- Minda Hu, Licheng Zong, Hongru Wang, Jingyan Zhou, Jingjing Li, Yichen Gao, Kam-Fai Wong, Yu Li, and Ir- win King. SeRTS: Self-rewarding tree search for biomed- ical retrieval-augmented generation. In Proc. of EMNLP Findings, 2024.
- Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2019.
- Xiaoyu Kong, Jiancan Wu, An Zhang, Leheng Sheng, Hui Lin, Xiang Wang, and Xiangnan He. Customizing language mod- els with instance-wise lora for sequential recommendation. In Proc. of NeurIPS, 2024.
- Changhao Li, Yuchen Zhuang, Rushi Qiang, Haotian Sun, Hanjun Dai, Chao Zhang, and Bo Dai. Matryoshka: Learn- ing to drive black-box llms with llms. arXiv:2410.20749, 2024. · arXiv
- Cheng Li, Mingyang Zhang, Qiaozhu Mei, Weize Kong, and Michael Bendersky. Learning to rewrite prompts for person- alized text generation. In Proc. of Web Conference, 2024.
- Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin A Raffel. Few- shot parameter-efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning. Proc. of NeurIPS, 2022.
- Jiahong Liu, Xinyu Fu, Menglin Yang, Weixi Zhang, Rex Ying, and Irwin King. Client-specific hyperbolic federated learning. In FedKDD@KDD, 2024.
- Qijiong Liu, Nuo Chen, Tetsuya Sakai, and Xiao-Ming Wu. ONCE: boosting content-based recommendation with both open-and closed-source large language models. In Proc. of WSDM, 2024.
- Aman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Peter Clark, and Yiming Yang. Memory-assisted prompt editing to improve gpt-3 after de- ployment. In Proc. of EMNLP, 2022.
- Sadhika Malladi, Tianyu Gao, Eshaan Nichani, Alex Damian, Jason D Lee, Danqi Chen, and Sanjeev Arora. Fine-tuning language models with just forward passes. Proc. of NeurIPS, 2023.
- Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agar- wal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Proc. of NeurIPS, 2022.
- Hongjin Qian, Peitian Zhang, Zheng Liu, Kelong Mao, and Zhicheng Dou. Memorag: Moving towards next-gen rag via memory-inspired knowledge discovery. arXiv:2409.05591, 2024. · arXiv
- Ruiyang Qin, Jun Xia, Zhenge Jia, Meng Jiang, Ahmed Ab- basi, Peipei Zhou, Jingtong Hu, and Yiyu Shi. Enabling on-device large language model personalization with self- supervised data selection and synthesis. In Proc. of DAC, 2024.
- Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. Direct pref- erence optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Proc. of NuerIPS, 36, 2024.
- Alexandre Rame, Guillaume Couairon, Corentin Dancette, Jean-Baptiste Gaya, Mustafa Shukor, Laure Soulier, and Matthieu Cord. Rewarded soups: towards pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewards. Proc. of NeurIPS, 2024.
- Alireza Salemi, Surya Kallumadi, and Hamed Zamani. Opti- mization methods for personalizing large language models through retrieval augmentation. In Proc. of SIGIR, 2024.
- Hongru Wang, Rui Wang, Fei Mi, Yang Deng, Zezhong Wang, Bin Liang, Ruifeng Xu, and Kam-Fai Wong. Cue-cot: Chain-of-thought prompting for responding to in-depth di- alogue questions with llms. In Proc. of EMNLP Findings, 2023.
- Hongru Wang, Huimin Wang, Lingzhi Wang, Minda Hu, Rui Wang, Boyang Xue, Yongfeng Huang, and Kam-Fai Wong. Tpe: Towards better compositional reasoning over cognitive tools via multi-persona collaboration. In NLPCC, pages 281-294. Springer, 2024.
- Song Wang, Yaochen Zhu, Haochen Liu, Zaiyi Zheng, Chen Chen, and Jundong Li. Knowledge editing for large lan- guage models: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 57(3):1- 37, 2024.
- Stanisław Woźniak, Bartłomiej Koptyra, Arkadiusz Janz, Prze- mysław Kazienko, and Jan Kocoń. Personalized large lan- guage models. arXiv:2402.09269, 2024. · arXiv
- Yuwei Wu, Xuezhe Ma, and Diyi Yang. Personalized response generation via generative split memory network. In Proc. of NAACL, 2021.
- Zeqiu Wu, Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Nouha Dziri, Alane Suhr, Prithviraj Ammanabrolu, Noah A Smith, Mari Ostendorf, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Fine-grained human feedback gives better rewards for language model training. Proc. of NeurIPS, 2023.
- Bin Wu, Zhengyan Shi, Hossein A Rahmani, Varsha Rami- neni, and Emine Yilmaz. Understanding the role of user profile in the personalization of large language models. arXiv:2406.17803, 2024. · arXiv
- Yi Zhang, Zhongyang Yu, Wanqi Jiang, Yufeng Shen, and Jin Li. Long-term memory for large language models through topic-based vector database. In Proc. of IALP, 2023.
- Kai Zhang, Yangyang Kang, Fubang Zhao, and Xiaozhong Liu. Llm-based medical assistant personalization with short- and long-term memory coordination. In Proc. of NAACL, 2024.
- You Zhang, Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, Dan Xu, and Xuejie Zhang. Personalized lora for human-centered text under- standing. In Proc. of AAAI, 2024.
- Wanjun Zhong, Duyu Tang, Jiahai Wang, Jian Yin, and Nan Duan. Useradapter: Few-shot user learning in sentiment analysis. In Proc. of ACL Findings, 2021.
- Zhanhui Zhou, Jie Liu, Chao Yang, Jing Shao, Yu Liu, Xi- angyu Yue, Wanli Ouyang, and Yu Qiao. Beyond one- preference-for-all: Multi-objective direct preference opti- mization. arXiv:2310.03708, 2023. · arXiv
- Han Zhou, Xingchen Wan, Ivan Vulić, and Anna Korhonen. Autopeft: Automatic configuration search for parameter- efficient fine-tuning. Proc. of ACL, 2024.
Cited by
Hyperbolic Graph Neural Networks: A Review of Methods and ApplicationsPreprint
Yang, M., Zhou, M., Zhang, T., Liu, J., Li, Z., Pan, L., Xiong, H., & King, I. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2202.13852 · Cited by 103
Self-citationA Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
Huang, W.-C., Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Bei, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, T., Pan, X., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Wei, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06052 · Cited by 70
The rise of small language models in healthcare: A comprehensive survey
Garg, M., Raza, S., Rayana, S., Liu, X., & Sohn, S. (2026) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2026.100999 · Cited by 67
Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive SurveyPreprint
Li, J., Fu, Y., Li, F., Liu, J., Shu, Y., Qin, C., Yang, M., King, I., & Ying, R. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02350 · Cited by 59
Self-citationA Survey of Personalization: From RAG to Agent
Li, X., Jia, P., Xu, D., Wen, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, W., Wang, Y., Du, Z., Li, X., et al. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3802586 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., Qiu, Z., Li, Z., Dai, Q., Yu, W., Zhu, J., Hu, M., Yang, M., Chua, T.-S., & King, I.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Huawei Technologies (China) (CN)
- The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) (CN)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.11528
- OpenAlex
- W4407713029
- Semantic Scholar
- 9e6b56fa4f6ea626c6748b6386214b279dd8f76f
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 109 · 2025: 35
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- personalized large language models, user personalization, fine-tuning, chatbots, recommender systems, emotion recognition, medical assistants, user profiles, historical dialogue
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
