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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivating example. Preferences can be consistent (certain) or diverse (uncertain).
Figure 2: Overall framework of VRF. Best viewed in color.
PersonalLLM
Method
Very Diverse ( α=0.001 )
Moderately Diverse ( α=0.01 )
Near Uniform ( α=0.1 )
Seen
Unseen
Overall
Seen
Unseen
Overall
Seen
Unseen
Overall
Ref
58.6 ± 0.2
58.9 ± 0.9
58.8 ± 0.4
59.1 ± 0.3
59.0 ± 0.6
59.1 ± 0.4
59.9 ± 0.2
60.0 ± 0.2
60.0 ± 0.2
BT
90.3 ± 0.3
90.5 ± 0.4
90.4 ± 0.2
91.1 ± 0.4
91.0 ± 0.3
91.1 ± 0.2
94.8 ± 0.2
94.6 ± 0.4
94.7 ± 0.2
VPL
86.4 ± 0.4
86.9 ± 0.5
86.6 ± 0.2
87.3 ± 0.5
87.4 ± 0.3
87.3 ± 0.2
91.7 ± 0.2
91.5 ± 0.5
91.6 ± 0.3
PAL
88.8 ± 0.5
89.3 ± 0.1
89.0 ± 0.3
89.3 ± 0.5
89.2 ± 0.3
89.2 ± 0.2
93.0 ± 0.2
92.8 ± 0.4
92.9 ± 0.3
Table 1: Overall performance comparison on three datasets.
Figure 3: In-depth analysis of unseen users in PRISM. VRF maintains superior accuracy across all user groups (a–c) while significantly reducing adaptation latency (d).
Dataset
Model
NLL ( ↓ )
Brier ( ↓ )
ECE ( ↓ )
PersonalLLM ( α=0.001 )
BT
0.2584 ± 0.0069
0.0734 ± 0.0017
0.0162 ± 0.0034
VRF
0.1747 ± 0.0195
0.0464 ± 0.0027
0.0099 ± 0.0095
PRISM
BT
0.6862 ± 0.0071
0.2402 ± 0.0027
0.0844 ± 0.0075
VRF
0.6348 ± 0.0049
0.2237 ± 0.0018
0.0269 ± 0.0127
TL;DR ( n=100 )
BT
0.7572 ± 0.0399
0.2600 ± 0.0086
0.1353 ± 0.0292
VRF
0.6862 ± 0.0310
0.2394 ± 0.0099
0.0761 ± 0.0348
Table 2: Calibration of predicted preference probabilities on the overall split. Lower is better for all metrics; ECE uses ten equal-width bins.
Model Variant
PersonalLLM ( α=0.001 )
TL;DR ( n=150 )
PRISM
Seen
Unseen
Overall
Seen
Unseen
Overall
Seen
Unseen
Overall
(a) w/o LVBT
92.7 ± 0.3
92.5 ± 0.7
92.6 ± 0.3
61.4 ± 0.5
60.8 ± 0.3
61.1 ± 0.4
58.3 ± 0.2
58.1 ± 0.5
58.2 ± 0.4
(b) w/o LSEP
91.9 ± 0.3
91.4 ± 0.7
91.7 ± 0.3
61.5 ± 0.6
60.8 ± 0.3
61.2 ± 0.5
58.2 ± 0.1
58.2 ± 0.5
58.2 ± 0.3
(c) w/o LREG
93.2 ± 0.2
93.5 ± 0.3
93.3 ± 0.2
61.2 ± 0.6
60.3 ± 0.4
60.8 ± 0.4
60.8 ± 0.4
60.8 ± 0.9
60.8 ± 0.7
(d) w/o MoG
91.9 ± 0.3
91.4 ± 0.7
91.7 ± 0.2
61.3 ± 0.5
60.8 ± 0.3
61.1 ± 0.4
60.2 ± 0.3
60.3 ± 0.8
60.2 ± 0.6
(e) w/o PoG
94.8 ± 0.2
95.0 ± 0.2
94.9 ± 0.2
62.7 ± 0.2
61.8 ± 0.4
62.2 ± 0.3
61.7 ± 0.5
60.6 ± 0.4
61.1 ± 0.2
Table 3: Ablation study on VRF across three datasets.
Figure 4: Case studies and the learned preference space on PRISM ( K=8 ). (a) Four users with varying data scarcity and preference diversity. n is the reference set size. Bars show the preference distribution classified by Claude Sonnet 4.6 (see Appendix D.1 for details). (b) Learned preference space. Stars and shaded regions denote the preference bases. For user ellipses, the center point represents wu , and the size reflects σu .
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Seen
Unseen
#Users
Training
Evaluation
#Users
Evaluation
∣Cu∣
∣Du∣
∣Cu∣
∣Du∣
∣Cu∣
∣Du∣
PersonalLLM
1,000
9.0
36.0
45.0
45.0
1,000
9.0
9.0
TL;DR ( n=100 )
20
50.0
50.0
100.0
1,449.8
20
50.0
1,146.4
TL;DR ( n=150 )
20
50.0
100.0
150.0
1,449.8
20
50.0
1,146.4
PRISM
623
3.0
6.1
9.1
8.6
623
9.6
9.1
Appendix
Table 4: Average dataset statistics per user. For seen users, Cu is sampled from training data per epoch, and the full training set serves as Cu at evaluation. For unseen users, only Cu is provided at inference to estimate user weights. Both settings are evaluated on held-out Du .
Dataset
Epochs
Batch size
Learning rate
Dropout
Weight decay
K
PersonalLLM ( α=0.001 )
5
8
2e-5
0.0
0.01
8
PersonalLLM ( α=0.01 )
5
8
2e-5
0.0
0.001
8
PersonalLLM ( α=0.1 )
5
8
2e-5
0.0
0.01
8
TL;DR ( n=100 )
3
8
6e-5
0.1
0.001
8
TL;DR ( n=150 )
3
8
6e-5
0.1
0.001
8
PRISM
5
8
6e-5
0.0
0.01
12
Appendix
Table 5: Best hyperparameter configurations for VRF across all datasets.
Backbone
Seen
Unseen
Overall
Training (min)
Inference (min)
0.6B
61.31 ± 0.57
60.58 ± 0.53
60.94 ± 0.18
80.8
20.1
1.7B
61.28 ± 0.32
60.44 ± 0.27
60.86 ± 0.21
131.4
33.6
4B
61.72 ± 0.51
61.31 ± 0.49
61.51 ± 0.43
288.1
74.6
8B
62.14 ± 0.46
61.15 ± 0.46
61.64 ± 0.32
446.8
117.3
Appendix
Table 6: Effect of backbone scale on accuracy and efficiency for the PRISM dataset.
Figure 5: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on three datasets.
Figure 6: In-depth comparison on PersonalLLM ( α=0.001 ) and TL;DR ( n=150 ) unseen users.
Figure 7: Distribution of dominant preference bases for seen and unseen users on PRISM.
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on reward models to align their outputs with diverse user preferences. While personalized reward models aim to capture such heterogeneity, they are often trained on imbalanced user preference data and may therefore favor users whose preferences are more common in the training population. In this paper, we identify this failure mode as personalized reward bias, where reward modeling quality varies systematically with preference support rate. We formulate its mitigation as a Pareto fairness problem over group utilities, aiming to improve under-served users without degrading other user groups. To this end, we propose PAFO, a Pareto fairness optimization framework for personalized reward modeling. PAFO first trains group-specialized reward models for majority and minority preference groups, then constructs conditional margin-level supervision to distill their heterogeneous preference boundaries into a single unified model. The resulting model uses group information only during training and requires no explicit group labels at inference time. Experiments on Personal-LLM and DSP show that PAFO improves both minority-group and majority-group accuracy while reducing user-level unfairness across multiple metrics, demonstrating its effectiveness for fairer LLM personalization.
Xiaoyan Zhao, Haoting Ni, Yang Zhang +3
National University of Singapore · University of Science and Technology of China · Peking University
Reward modeling is a key step in building safe foundation models when applying reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to align Large Language Models (LLMs). However, reward modeling based on the Bradley-Terry (BT) model assumes a global reward function, failing to capture the inherently diverse and heterogeneous human preferences. Hence, such oversimplification limits LLMs from supporting personalization and pluralistic alignment. Theoretically, we show that when human preferences follow a mixture distribution of diverse subgroups, a single BT model has an irreducible error. While existing solutions, such as multi-objective learning with fine-grained annotations, help address this issue, they are costly and constrained by predefined attributes, failing to fully capture the richness of human values. In this work, we introduce MiCRo, a two-stage framework that enhances personalized preference learning by leveraging large-scale binary preference datasets without requiring explicit fine-grained annotations. In the first stage, MiCRo introduces context-aware mixture modeling approach to capture diverse human preferences. In the second stage, MiCRo integrates an online routing strategy that dynamically adapts mixture weights based on specific context to resolve ambiguity, allowing for efficient and scalable preference adaptation with minimal additional supervision. Experiments on multiple preference datasets demonstrate that MiCRo effectively captures diverse human preferences and significantly improves downstream personalization.
Jingyan Shen, Jiarui Yao, Rui Yang +5
New York University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Rice University
Proprietary Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of tasks, yet aligning their outputs with diverse user preferences remains challenging. Existing personalization approaches for black-box LLMs often rely on user-specific scoring heads, causing the number of personalized parameters to grow linearly with the number of users and requiring additional adaptation for unseen users. To address these limitations, we propose Mixture-of-Facets (MoF), a scalable personalization framework for black-box LLMs that models user preferences as compositions of shared latent preference facets rather than dedicated user-specific parameters. MoF performs personalization through history-conditioned routing over shared facet heads, enabling personalization for users unseen during training without additional parameter updates. Across diverse personalization tasks, MoF delivers stronger personalization performance while maintaining a more scalable and parameter-efficient design than prior approaches. Additional analysis indicates strong generalization to unseen users.
Hun Park
Department of Artificial Intelligence Korea University Seoul, Republic of Korea