The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the demand for effective personalization techniques that can adapt model behavior to individual user preferences. Despite the non-parametric methods utilizing the in-context learning ability of LLMs, recent parametric adaptation methods, including personalized parameter-efficient fine-tuning and reward modeling emerge. However, these methods face limitations in handling dynamic user patterns and high data sparsity scenarios, due to low adaptability and data efficiency. To address these challenges, we propose a fine-grained and instance-tailored steering framework that dynamically generates sample-level interference vectors from user data and injects them into the model's forward pass for personalized adaptation. Our approach introduces two key technical innovations: a fine-grained steering component that captures nuanced signals by hooking activations from attention and MLP layers, and an input-aware aggregation module that synthesizes these signals into contextually relevant enhancements. The method demonstrates high flexibility and data efficiency, excelling in fast-changing distribution and high data sparsity scenarios. In addition, the proposed method is orthogonal to existing methods and operates as a plug-in component compatible with different personalization techniques. Extensive experiments across diverse scenarios--including short-to-long text generation, and web function calling--validate the effectiveness and compatibility of our approach. Results show that our method significantly enhances personalization performance in fast-shifting environments while maintaining robustness across varying interaction modes and context lengths. Implementation is available at https://github.com/KounianhuaDu/Fints.

Accurate interpretation of clinical narratives is critical for patient care, but the complexity of these notes makes automation challenging. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise, single-model approaches can lack the robustness required for high-stakes clinical tasks. We introduce a collaborative multi-agent system (MAS) that models a clinical consultation team to address this gap. The system is tasked with identifying clinical problems by analyzing only the Subjective (S) and Objective (O) sections of SOAP notes, simulating the diagnostic reasoning process of synthesizing raw data into an assessment. A Manager agent orchestrates a dynamically assigned team of specialist agents who engage in a hierarchical, iterative debate to reach a consensus. We evaluated our MAS against a single-agent baseline on a curated dataset of 420 MIMIC-III notes. The dynamic multi-agent configuration demonstrated consistently improved performance in identifying congestive heart failure, acute kidney injury, and sepsis. Qualitative analysis of the agent debates reveals that this structure effectively surfaces and weighs conflicting evidence, though it can occasionally be susceptible to groupthink. By modeling a clinical team's reasoning process, our system offers a promising path toward more accurate, robust, and interpretable clinical decision support tools.

As more content generated by large language models (LLMs) floods into the Internet, information retrieval (IR) systems now face the challenge of distinguishing and handling a blend of human-authored and machine-generated texts. Recent studies suggest that neural retrievers may exhibit a preferential inclination toward LLM-generated content, while classic term-based retrievers like BM25 tend to favor human-written documents. This paper investigates the influence of LLM-generated content on term-based retrieval models, which are valued for their efficiency and robust generalization across domains. Our linguistic analysis reveals that LLM-generated texts exhibit smoother high-frequency and steeper low-frequency Zipf slopes, higher term specificity, and greater document-level diversity. These traits are aligned with LLMs being trained to optimize reader experience through diverse and precise expressions. Our study further explores whether term-based retrieval models demonstrate source bias, concluding that these models prioritize documents whose term distributions closely correspond to those of the queries, rather than displaying an inherent source bias. This work provides a foundation for understanding and addressing potential biases in term-based IR systems managing mixed-source content.

Generating stylized large language model (LLM) responses via representation editing is a promising way for fine-grained output control. However, there exists an inherent trade-off: imposing a distinctive style often degrades truthfulness. Existing representation editing methods, by naively injecting style signals, overlook this collateral impact and frequently contaminate the model's core truthfulness representations, resulting in reduced answer correctness. We term this phenomenon stylization-induced truthfulness collapse. We attribute this issue to latent coupling between style and truth directions in certain key attention heads, and propose StyliTruth, a mechanism that preserves stylization while keeping truthfulness intact. StyliTruth separates the style-relevant and truth-relevant subspaces in the model's representation space via an orthogonal deflation process. This decomposition enables independent control of style and truth in their own subspaces, minimizing interference. By designing adaptive, token-level steering vectors within each subspace, we dynamically and precisely control the generation process to maintain both stylistic fidelity and truthfulness. We validate our method on multiple styles and languages. Extensive experiments and analyses show that StyliTruth significantly reduces stylization-induced truthfulness collapse and outperforms existing inference-time intervention methods in balancing style adherence with truthfulness.

In modern search systems, search engines often suggest relevant queries to users through various panels or components, helping refine their information needs. Traditionally, these recommendations heavily rely on historical search logs to build models, which suffer from cold-start or long-tail issues. Furthermore, tasks such as query suggestion, completion or clarification are studied separately by specific design, which lacks generalizability and hinders adaptation to novel applications. Despite recent attempts to explore the use of LLMs for query recommendation, these methods mainly rely on the inherent knowledge of LLMs or external sources like few-shot examples, retrieved documents, or knowledge bases, neglecting the importance of the calibration and alignment with user feedback, thus limiting their practical utility. To address these challenges, we first propose a general Generative Query Recommendation (GQR) framework that aligns LLM-based query generation with user preference. Specifically, we unify diverse query recommendation tasks by a universal prompt framework, leveraging the instruct-following capability of LLMs for effective generation. Secondly, we align LLMs with user feedback via presenting a CTR-alignment framework, which involves training a query-wise CTR predictor as a process reward model and employing list-wise preference alignment to maximize the click probability of the generated query list. Furthermore, recognizing the inconsistency between LLM knowledge and proactive search intents arising from the separation of user-initiated queries from models, we align LLMs with user initiative via retrieving co-occurrence queries as side information when historical logs are available.

Large language models(LLMs) like Gemini are becoming common tools for supporting student writing. But most of their feedback is based only on the final essay missing important context about how that text was written. In this paper, we explore whether using writing process data, collected through keystroke logging and periodic snapshots, can help LLMs give feedback that better reflects how learners think and revise while writing. We built a digital writing tool that captures both what students type and how their essays evolve over time. Twenty students used this tool to write timed essays, which were then evaluated in two ways: (i) LLM generated feedback using both the final essay and the full writing trace, and (ii) After the task, students completed surveys about how useful and relatable they found the feedback. Early results show that learners preferred the process-aware LLM feedback, finding it more in tune with their own thinking. We also found that certain types of edits, like adding new content or reorganizing paragraphs, aligned closely with higher scores in areas like coherence and elaboration. Our findings suggest that making LLMs more aware of the writing process can lead to feedback that feels more meaningful, personal, and supportive.