IC-238LLMs fail to follow user preferences in zero-shot settings, with accuracy below 10% at 10 turns and near zero at 300 turns

Report a problem with this record

Siyan Zhao, Mingyi Hong, Yang Liu, Devamanyu Hazarika, Kaixiang Lin

SourceDo LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMs

Across 10 open-source and proprietary LLMs, preference-following accuracy in zero-shot settings drops steeply as the number of conversation turns between the stated preference and the query increases. At 5 turns accuracy falls from roughly 80% to below 30%, and at 300 turns it approaches zero for all models. Even at just 10 turns (~3k tokens), GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini-1.5-Pro all score only 0.07. The dominant error type in zero-shot is preference-unaware violation, meaning the model simply does not track the earlier preference.

Evidence
correlational
Key metric
accuracy drops from approximately 80% to below 30% at 5 turns; at 300 turns accuracy falls close to zero; at 10 turns zero-shot: GPT-4o 0.07, Claude 3.5 Sonnet 0.07, Gemini-1.5-Pro 0.07, O1-preview 0.50, O3 0.71
Caveat
The o-series models may involve additional test-time compute due to their thinking phase, making direct comparison with other models potentially unfair.
Model
Claude 3 Sonnet, Haiku, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Mistral 7B / Mistral / Mistral 3 7B / Mistral-0.2-7B / Mistral-v0.1 Mistral-7B-Instruct, Mixtral 8x7B / Mistral 8x7B Instruct / Mixtral 46.7B / Mixtral 8x7B Instruct / Mixtral-instruct-8x7b, Llama 3 8B Instruct, 70B Instruct, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, O1 / OpenAI-o1-preview o1-preview, O4-mini, O3, Gemini 1.5 / Gemini Pro 1.5 Gemini 1.5 Pro
Concepts
Failure mode, Positional bias
Datasets
LMSYS-Chat-1M [source]
Methods
RAG [compared-to]
Related work
LAMP [context], Lost in the Middle [context]
Related findings
IC-239, IC-240, IC-241
Extraction
automatic-extraction