Skip to content
← Back to explorer

PACIFIC: Can LLMs Discern the Traits Influencing Your Preferences? Evaluating Personality-Driven Preference Alignment in LLMs

Tianyu Zhao, Siqi Li, Yasser Shoukry, Salma Elmalaki · Feb 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

User preferences are increasingly used to personalize Large Language Model (LLM) responses, yet how to reliably leverage preference signals for answer generation remains under-explored. In practice, preferences can be noisy, incomplete, or even misleading, which can degrade answer quality when applied naively. Motivated by the observation that stable personality traits shape everyday preferences, we study personality as a principled ''latent'' signal behind preference statements. Through extensive experiments, we find that conditioning on personality-aligned preferences substantially improves personalized question answering: selecting preferences consistent with a user's inferred personality increases answer-choice accuracy from 29.25% to 76%, compared to using randomly selected preferences. Based on these findings, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment Choices Inference for Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-labeled preference dataset containing 1200 preference statements spanning diverse domains (e.g., travel, movies, education), annotated with Big-Five (OCEAN) trait directions. Finally, we propose a framework that enables an LLM model to automatically retrieve personality-aligned preferences and incorporate them during answer generation.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence: Moderate

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Through extensive experiments, we find that conditioning on personality-aligned preferences substantially improves personalized question answering: selecting preferences consistent with a user's inferred personality increases answer-choice… HFEPX signals include Pairwise Preference, Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.70. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 9:55 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Through extensive experiments, we find that conditioning on personality-aligned preferences substantially improves personalized question answering: selecting preferences consistent…
  • Based on these findings, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment Choices Inference for Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-labeled preference dataset…

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Through extensive experiments, we find that conditioning on personality-aligned preferences substantially improves personalized question answering: selecting preferences consistent with a user's inferred personality increases answer-choice…
  • Based on these findings, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment Choices Inference for Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-labeled preference dataset containing 1200 preference statements spanning diverse domains (e.g.,…
  • Finally, we propose a framework that enables an LLM model to automatically retrieve personality-aligned preferences and incorporate them during answer generation.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Based on these findings, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment Choices Inference for Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-labeled preference dataset containing 1200 preference statements spanning diverse domains (e.g.,…
  • Finally, we propose a framework that enables an LLM model to automatically retrieve personality-aligned preferences and incorporate them during answer generation.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.