Personalized text generation aims to infer users' writing style preferences from their historical texts and generate outputs that faithfully reflect these stylistic characteristics. Existing solutions primarily adopt two paradigms: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). While these approaches have advanced the field, they suffer from two critical limitations: (1) the entanglement of content semantics and stylistic patterns in historical texts impedes accurate modeling of user-specific writing preferences; and (2) scalability challenges arising from both RAG's inference latency by retrieval operations and PEFT's parameter storage requirements for per user model. To overcome these limitations, we propose StyleVector, a training-free framework that disentangles and represents personalized writing style as a vector in LLM's activation space, enabling style-steered generation during inference without requiring costly retrieval or parameter storage. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that our framework achieves a significant 8% relative improvement in personalized generation while reducing storage requirements by 1700 times over PEFT method.

Personalized text generation presents a specialized mechanism for delivering content that is specific to a user's personal context. While the research progress in this area has been rapid, evaluation still presents a challenge. Traditional automated metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE primarily measure lexical similarity to human-written references, and are not able to distinguish personalization from other subtle semantic aspects, thus falling short of capturing the nuances of personalized generated content quality. On the other hand, human judgments are costly to obtain, especially in the realm of personalized evaluation. Inspired by these challenges, we explore the use of large language models (LLMs) for evaluating personalized text generation, and examine their ability to understand nuanced user context. We present AuPEL, a novel evaluation method that distills three major semantic aspects of the generated text: personalization, quality and relevance, and automatically measures these aspects. To validate the effectiveness of AuPEL, we design carefully controlled experiments and compare the accuracy of the evaluation judgments made by LLMs versus that of judgements made by human annotators, and conduct rigorous analyses of the consistency and sensitivity of the proposed metric. We find that, compared to existing evaluation metrics, AuPEL not only distinguishes and ranks models based on their personalization abilities more accurately, but also presents commendable consistency and efficiency for this task. Our work suggests that using LLMs as the evaluators of personalized text generation is superior to traditional text similarity metrics, even though interesting new challenges still remain.

Facilitated by large language models (LLMs), personalized text generation has become a rapidly growing research direction. Most existing studies focus on designing specialized models for a particular domain, or they require fine-tuning the LLMs to generate personalized text. We consider a typical scenario in which the large language model, which generates personalized output, is frozen and can only be accessed through APIs. Under this constraint, all one can do is to improve the input text (i.e., text prompts) sent to the LLM, a procedure that is usually done manually. In this paper, we propose a novel method to automatically revise prompts for personalized text generation. The proposed method takes the initial prompts generated by a state-of-the-art, multistage framework for personalized generation and rewrites a few critical components that summarize and synthesize the personal context. The prompt rewriter employs a training paradigm that chains together supervised learning (SL) and reinforcement learning (RL), where SL reduces the search space of RL and RL facilitates end-to-end training of the rewriter. Using datasets from three representative domains, we demonstrate that the rewritten prompts outperform both the original prompts and the prompts optimized via supervised learning or reinforcement learning alone. In-depth analysis of the rewritten prompts shows that they are not only human readable, but also able to guide manual revision of prompts when there is limited resource to employ reinforcement learning to train the prompt rewriter, or when it is costly to deploy an automatic prompt rewriter for inference.