arXiv:2609.01615v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personalizing a frozen large language model (LLM) to individual users is often framed as a meta-learning problem in prompt space: each user is a task, and one seeks a shared natural-language adaptation policy that, given a handful of the user's labeled interactions, configures the frozen model for that user. The framing is attractive because it is backbone-agnostic and reuses the machinery of prompt optimization, yet the field rarely tests whether the optimized meta-objective encodes transferable cross-user adaptation rather than generic instruction quality. We study this question with Muse (Meta-learned User-adaptation via Shared Evolution), which evolves a single shared adaptation prompt over a meta-train user population by reflective prompt evolution, freezes it, and applies it zero-shot to held-out users; matched controls isolate learning from confounds of phrasing and selection. On two standard personalization benchmarks (LaMP-2 categorization and LaMP-3 rating) over 200 held-out users each, Muse does not significantly improve on its own un-evolved seed prompt or on a structure-broken control that meta-trains on mismatched user-support pairs, and is dominated by plain few-shot retrieval on the rating task (Delta MAE +0.175, p < 0.001). We attribute these outcomes to a single mechanism, meta-objective collapse: the meta-validation objective is statistically invariant to whether the user-support correspondence is genuine (p=0.555 on LaMP-2, p=0.622 on LaMP-3), so it cannot be optimized into transferable adaptation and instead rewards instruction polish and validation overfitting. The seed-prompt, wrong-support, and invariance-oracle controls form a reusable protocol that separates learned adaptation from these confounds.
RAG fails when one wrong retrieval step ruins the whole chain