VIBE-Bench: Evaluating Personalized Large Language Models When Profiles Don't Mean Preferences

Personalized Large Language Models (PLLMs) aim to tailor responses to individual users, where a central challenge is preference reasoning: inferring query-relevant preferences from user-related history. Existing benchmarks, however, largely assume that such preference can be retrieved from semantically related history. We study an underexplored but practically important regime, profile-preference conceptual misalignment (PRCM), where observable profile cues and query-specific preferences lie in different concept spaces, making semantic retrieval inconsistent for personalization. We introduce VIBE-Bench, a benchmark with two psychology-grounded tasks, 3,504 personas and 12,239 dialogues, including a manually verified gold test set, and requires cross-concept preference reasoning beyond surface semantic overlap. Experiments with several personalization methods show that current PLLMs largely rely on shallow semantic correlations and fail to acquire robust cross-concept mappings. These findings establish PRCM as a distinct failure regime in PLLMs and position VIBE-Bench as a focused testbed for advancing preference reasoning beyond semantic matching.

Preference Reasoning under Indeterminacy in Large Language Models

As large language models evolve into decision-making agents, the ability to reason over preferences becomes fundamental to alignment, coordination, and collective intelligence. Yet, unlike standard benchmarks, real-world preference reasoning is inherently indeterminate: information may be incomplete, and valid solutions may not exist. We argue that indeterminacy, rather than correctness alone, is a central challenge for AI reasoning. We formalize this challenge along two axes, (i) epistemic indeterminacy, arising from incomplete, partial, or expressive preferences, and (ii) structural indeterminacy, arising from the non-existence of solutions under standard social choice concepts. Across a hierarchy of tasks, we show that state-of-the-art language models systematically fail to distinguish between determined and undetermined instances, exhibiting miscalibrated reasoning even in verification settings.