Large language models are increasingly used as personal assistants, yet most lack a persistent user model, forcing users to repeatedly restate preferences across sessions. We propose Vector-Adapted Retrieval Scoring (VARS), a pipeline-agnostic, frozen-backbone framework that represents each user with long-term and short-term vectors in a shared preference space and uses these vectors to bias retrieval scoring over structured preference memory. The vectors are updated online from weak scalar rewards from users' feedback, enabling personalization without per-user fine-tuning. We evaluate on MultiSessionCollab, an online multi-session collaboration benchmark with rich user preference profiles, across math and code tasks. Under frozen backbones, the main benefit of user-aware retrieval is improved interaction efficiency rather than large gains in raw task accuracy: our full VARS agent achieves the strongest overall performance, matches a strong Reflection baseline in task success, and reduces timeout rate and user effort. The learned long-term vectors also align with cross-user preference overlap, while short-term vectors capture session-specific adaptation, supporting the interpretability of the dual-vector design. Code, model, and data are available at https://github.com/YurenHao0426/VARS.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: VARS architecture. Mext extracts preference cards; a dual user vector zU,teff=βLzU(L)+βSzU,t(S) biases reranking; a keyword-based reward r^t drives REINFORCE updates.
Figure 2: Main results summary on MultiSessionCollab .
Method
Success (%) ↑
Timeout (%) ↓
User tokens ↓
VARS
55.2
26.4
193.6
Reflection
54.4
28.8
207.5
Vanilla
54.3
29.2
232.9
Contextual
52.4
31.4
213.7
RAG
52.0
44.3
188.4
All-memory
50.9
33.4
226.8
Table 1: Main results on MultiSessionCollab ( 60 profiles ×60 sessions). Bold = best; underline = second best.
Metric
Reflection
RAG+Vec
Δ
p (paired t )
Success (%)
54.4
55.2
+ 0.9
0.276
Timeout (%)
28.8
26.4
− 2.4
0.046 ∗
User tokens
207.5
193.6
− 13.9
0.021 ∗
Table 2: VARS vs. Reflection ( 60 profiles, one-sided paired t -tests). ∗ p<0.05 .
Table 6: Training data sources for the preference extractor.
ID
When
Then
cs_008
providing error handling examples
always use specific exception types, never bare except
ds_001
discussing ML concepts
include mathematical formulation alongside intuitive explanation
ds_006
writing documentation
be concise, avoid marketing language, focus on usage
vb_002
complex algorithms/mathematics
provide detailed step-by-step derivation with intermediate results
ms_002
discussing statistics/probability
start with intuition and real-world interpretation before formulas
rf_003
providing a final answer
put the answer first, then explanation
Appendix
Table 7: Revealed preferences for user_14b429db during the 20-session MultiSessionCollab run.
Metric
ONLINE-USER
VANILLA
AvgSatS2
0.9500
0.7250
ViolRateS2(too_long)
0.1667
0.4167
ViolRateS2(no_bullets)
0.0000
0.5000
Recall@k_S2(SHORT)
0.6667
0.0000
Recall@k_S2(BULLETS)
0.8333
0.0000
Recall@k_S2(LANG)
1.0000
0.0000
Appendix
Table 8: Offline Session 2 results (no complaints, 6 personas). ONLINE-USER substantially improves satisfaction and reduces violations compared to a VANILLA LLM without preference memory.
Metric
ONLINE-USER
VANILLA
AvgSatS2
0.9750
0.8625
ViolRateS2(too_long)
0.0833
0.1667
ViolRateS2(no_bullets)
0.0000
0.2917
Recall@k_S2(SHORT)
0.6667
0.0000
Recall@k_S2(BULLETS)
0.7917
0.0000
Recall@k_S2(LANG)
1.0000
0.0000
Appendix
Table 9: Offline Session 2 results with longer lifetimes (10 sessions per user). ONLINE-USER continues to outperform VANILLA in satisfaction, violation rates, and preference-memory recall.
Setting
ηL=1.0×10−2 : LR for long-term vector zU(L)
ηS=5.0×10−2 : LR for short-term vector zU,t(S)
λ=0.1 : Exponential decay for zU,t(S) between turns
α=0.05 : EMA coefficient for reward baseline bU
τ=1.0 : Policy temperature in the softmax over memories
Appendix
Table 10: Core REINFORCE update parameters. All experiments use the code values.
Setting
βL=2.0 : Weight of long-term vector in zU,teff
βS=5.0 : Weight of short-term vector in zU,teff
k ( item_dim ) =256 : Dimensionality of item and user vectors
Appendix
Table 11: User-vector weighting and item-space dimension.
Setting
dense_topk =64 : Number of candidates from dense retrieval
rerank_topk =3 : Final memories fed to the LLM
Appendix
Table 12: Retrieval parameters used in our RAG and VARS implementations.
Case
Condition
gt
Retrieval failure
r^t<−0.5 , low similarity
0.9
LLM failure
r^t<−0.5 , high similarity
0.2
Good + retrieval helped
r^t>0.5 , similarity >0.4
0.6
Good + no retrieval help
r^t>0.5 , similarity ≤0.4
0.3
Default
neutral / other cases
0.5
Appendix
Table 13: Gating cases for the retrieval-specific advantage Atretr=gt(r^t−bU) . “Similarity” refers to the similarity between chosen memories and the current query; in the “Good” cases we use a numerical threshold of 0.4 .
Config
∥z(L)∥
Δ%
cos to base
Baseline
0.288
—
1.000
Half neg keywords
0.288
0%
1.000
Noisy neg keywords
0.603
+109%
0.184
Clip [−0.5,0.5]
0.374
+30%
0.490
Dampen thresh 0.1
0.288
0%
1.000
Dampen thresh 0.3
0.288
0%
1.000
Appendix
Table 14: Reward sensitivity. Baseline uses the default keyword list and clip range [−1,1] with dampening threshold 0.2 .
Config
∥z(L)∥
Δ%
cos to base
Fixed g=0.5
0.771
+168%
0.444
Fixed g=1.0
1.593
+454%
0.410
Thresh (0.1,0.4)
0.288
0%
1.000
Thresh (0.3,0.6)
0.288
0%
1.000
Appendix
Table 15: Gating sensitivity. Baseline uses the heuristic gating with similarity thresholds (0.2,0.5) .
Reward factorization personalizes large language models (LLMs) by decomposing rewards into shared basis functions and user-specific weights. Yet, existing methods estimate user weights from scarce data in isolation and as deterministic points, leading to inaccurate and unreliable inference. We introduce Variational Reward Factorization (VRF), an uncertainty-aware framework that represents each user's preferences as a variational distribution in a shared preference space. VRF infers user distributions via a variational encoder, derives weights through Wasserstein distance matching with shared probabilistic bases, and downweights uncertain estimates through a variance-attenuated loss. On three benchmarks, VRF outperforms all baselines across seen and unseen users, few-shot scenarios, and varying uncertainty levels, with gains extending to downstream alignment. Our code is available at https://github.com/Gyu-Seok-Lee/VRF_COLM26.
Gyuseok Lee, Wonbin Kweon, Zhenrui Yue +3
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Korea University
Memory enables language model assistants to maintain continuity across sessions and generate personalized responses, but knowing more about a user does not necessarily produce responses they prefer. Existing evaluations assess memory capabilities without directly establishing whether memory use benefits the user. To study this gap, we collect approximately 1,000 pairwise judgments from 87 participants using their own ChatGPT queries and personal memories. We find that memory-conditioned responses are not consistently preferred over responses generated without memory and in some cases, users strongly prefer the latter. Automatic evaluators also show limited agreement with users and favor memory-conditioned responses substantially more often than users do. Motivated by these gaps, we introduce a memory-aware reward model that learns from user judgments, achieving 72.8% preference prediction accuracy and outperforming the existing baselines. Our findings motivate evaluation and optimization objectives that align memory use with the preferences of the people whose information is being used.
Yijiang River Dong, Zexue He, Cheng Yu +9
University of Cambridge · Stanford University · Technical University of Munich +2
Long-term conversational agents are expected to remember past interactions, but memory is useful only when the right evidence is recalled for the right user. Existing memory-augmented LLM agents have made progress in building compact memory banks, yet retrieval is still often driven by query-centered similarity or fixed ranking rules, leaving user-conditioned relevance underexplored. To address this gap, we propose Profile-guided Personalized Retrieval Optimization (PPRO), a retrieval-centric framework that makes memory retrieval both user-aware and optimizable. PPRO builds episodic and semantic memory banks from dialogue histories and derives a user profile from accumulated memories. The profile serves as an explicit personalized prior in memory ranking, allowing retrieval to account for stable user attributes, preferences, and relationships. PPRO further trains a query rewriter with Group Relative Policy Optimization, using both evidence retrieval quality and downstream answer quality as feedback while keeping the memory banks and answer model fixed. Experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S show consistent gains over training-free memory systems and training-based baselines. Ablation studies further show that both profile-guided ranking and retrieval-oriented rewriting contribute substantially to performance, highlighting retrieval optimization as a key factor in personalized long-term memory use.