analiza aiqbench
This paper introduces ProcessPrefBench, a new evaluation framework designed to measure how effectively LLMs transfer individual user process preferences from one dialogue context to another unrelated task. The study reveals a critical trade-off where leveraging full interaction history improves preference alignment but significantly increases the risk of model hallucinations and fabricated evidence. For researchers in human-AI interaction, this benchmark highlights the inherent tension between personalization and factual reliability when scaling conversational agents.
ProcessPrefBench: Evaluating Cross-Task Transfer of Individual Process Preferences from Naturalistic Human-AI Interaction
arXiv:2611.06065v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In natural human-AI dialogue, users' corrections, requests, and self-descriptions carry reusable signals about how they want work to be done. These signals reveal individual process preferences, user-specific standards for evidence, depth, analytical focus, procedure, and delivery. We ask whether a preference revealed in one dialogue can shape an assistant's later answer when the task does not restate it. ProcessPrefBench uses three months of natural dialogues from two knowledge workers to build 66 source-target cases separately judged for source evidence and target applicability. Sources are preselected, so the benchmark tests application rather than retrieval. We test three models with target-only, full-history, and distilled-preference prompts. Target-specific 0-2 rubrics score preference realization, and a task gate flags severe failures. Compared with target-only prompting, full-history and imperative distilled-preference prompting raise preference realization by 0.204 and 0.244 points on the 0-2 scale, respectively, with no reliable advantage from distillation. Fabricated-evidence failures rise from 5.8% under target-only prompting to 10.1% under full-history and 10.4% under imperative prompting. ProcessPrefBench highlights a tension in learning from dialogue, where drawing on prior interactions can improve preference realization yet also invite fabricated evidence. We hope it helps build assistants that honor a user's process preferences without sacrificing factual reliability.
Abstract:In natural human-AI dialogue, users' corrections, requests, and self-descriptions carry reusable signals about how they want work to be done. These signals reveal individual process preferences, user-specific standards for evidence, depth, analytical focus, procedure, and delivery. We ask whether a preference revealed in one dialogue can shape an assistant's later answer when the task does not restate it. ProcessPrefBench uses three months of natural dialogues from two knowledge workers to build 66 source-target cases separately judged for source evidence and target applicability. Sources are preselected, so the benchmark tests application rather than retrieval. We test three models with target-only, full-history, and distilled-preference prompts. Target-specific 0-2 rubrics score preference realization, and a task gate flags severe failures. Compared with target-only prompting, full-history and imperative distilled-preference prompting raise preference realization by 0.204 and 0.244 points on the 0-2 scale, respectively, with no reliable advantage from distillation. Fabricated-evidence failures rise from 5.8% under target-only prompting to 10.1% under full-history and 10.4% under imperative prompting. ProcessPrefBench highlights a tension in learning from dialogue, where drawing on prior interactions can improve preference realization yet also invite fabricated evidence. We hope it helps build assistants that honor a user's process preferences without sacrificing factual reliability.
11 pages, 2 figures. Published at LM Playschool 2026 (EMNLP 2026 workshop)
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2611.06065 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2611.06065v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.06065 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
https://doi.org/10.18653/2026.lmplayschool-1.3 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 316 cuvinte