Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China · Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. · Nanyang Technological University
Abstract
Large Language Model (LLM) personalization aims to align model behaviors with individual user preferences. Existing methods often focus on isolated user histories, neglecting the essential role of inter-user differences. We propose C-BPO, a framework that personalizes LLMs via preference-calibrated binary signals. By treating target user data as positive feedback and other users' data as an auxiliary set of implicit negative signals, C-BPO captures distinct inter-user differences. To mitigate the preference overlap issue, where shared task knowledge is erroneously penalized, we derive an objective grounded in Positive-Unlabeled (PU) learning theory. This approach purifies negative signals by subtracting ``positive bias'', ensuring alignment with unique idiosyncrasies without compromising general helpfulness. Empirical experiments across various personalization tasks and backbone LLMs show C-BPO consistently outperforms baselines, demonstrating the efficacy of preference-calibrated binary signals in modeling inter-user differences.
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.
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong implicit personalization ability, yet most existing approaches treat this behavior as a black box, relying on prompt engineering or fine tuning on user data. In this work, we adopt a mechanistic interpretability perspective and hypothesize the existence of a sparse set of Preference Heads, attention heads that encode user specific stylistic and topical preferences and exert a causal influence on generation. We introduce Differential Preference Steering (DPS), a training free framework that (1) identifies Preference Heads through causal masking analysis and (2) leverages them for controllable and interpretable personalization at inference time. DPS computes a Preference Contribution Score (PCS) for each attention head, directly measuring its causal impact on user aligned outputs. During decoding, we contrast model predictions with and without Preference Heads, amplifying the difference between personalized and generic logits to selectively strengthen preference aligned continuations. Experiments on widely used personalization benchmarks across multiple LLMs demonstrate consistent gains in personalization fidelity while preserving content coherence and low computational overhead. Beyond empirical improvements, DPS provides a mechanistic explanation of where and how personalization emerges within transformer architectures. Our implementation is publicly available.
Current approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) aggregate diverse human preferences into a single reward signal, effectively optimizing for a hypothetical ``average user'' who represents no real person particularly well. This position paper argues that LLMs should learn personalized, individual preferences rather than aggregated ones. We show that aggregation masks critical information about preference diversity, individual values, and contextual dependencies, which is a limitation both theoretically grounded in social choice theory and empirically evident across demographic groups. We analyze the rich structure that human preferences encode, survey technical approaches to personalization, and systematically address counterarguments on scalability, shared standards, and manipulation risk. While personalization introduces genuine safety challenges including filter bubbles, value lock-in, and psychological manipulation, we argue these are manageable through bounded personalization frameworks that preserve universal safety constraints while accommodating legitimate individual variation. We conclude with a concrete research and policy agenda for developing preference-aware models that respect both individual autonomy and collective safety.