Probing Persona-Dependent Preferences in Language Models

Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure. Notably, this structure often includes preferences that the models' trainers did not intend, such as valuing people of some nationalities above others, raising the possibility that LLMs might be forming emergent, misaligned goals, which, if true, would have major safety implications. However, the choice paradigms in which these preferences are observed are not reflective of real-world situations in which misaligned behavior would be a practical concern. Therefore, we design an experimental paradigm to probe whether these preferences serve as motivations for LLM behavior in realistic scenarios. First, we reproduce prior findings on consistent preference elicitation. Next, we create a set of common writing tasks - essays, grant proposal abstracts, incident postmortems, and translations - where quality can be assessed by a blind, independent LLM judge panel. Then, we demonstrate that LLMs can be motivated via direct exhortation and other explicit cues to modulate their output quality on these tasks. Finally, we probe whether utilities inferred from explicitly reported preferences can shift output quality on these tasks by offering LLMs high-utility incentives for high-quality outputs. In all tasks, across all models tested, offering LLMs outcomes that they report in the choice paradigm as being highly preferred does not lead them to create higher quality outputs than offering them dispreferred outcomes, or even no outcomes at all. We conclude that the existence of coherent preferences as demonstrated in choice paradigms should not be taken as evidence that those preferences have incentive value for the models or affect their behavior in other contexts.

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.

User preferences are increasingly used to personalize Large Language Model (LLM) responses, yet reliably leveraging preference signals remains under-explored. In practice, preferences can be noisy, incomplete, or even misleading, which can degrade answer quality when applied naively. Motivated by the observation that stable personality traits shape everyday preferences, we introduce PACIFIC (Preference Alignment for Choices Inference via Five-factor Identity Characterization), a personality-driven preference alignment framework that uses Big-Five (OCEAN) traits as a principled "latent" signal for organizing and reasoning over user preference history. To systematically evaluate this framework, we construct a psychometrics-based dataset containing 1,200 preference-query pairs spanning diverse domains (e.g., travel, movies, and education), with comprehensive coverage of high and low Big-Five trait directions. Extensive experiments show that trait-aligned preferences substantially improve personalized QA: given clean, trait-aligned context, LLMs reach near-ceiling accuracy (up to 99%), confirming that reasoning capability is not the bottleneck. The challenge is that real histories are mixed-trait and unlabeled. We show the true bottleneck is retrieval: a persona-aware contrastive retriever (PiRAG) raises label-free accuracy from 30% to 43% over standard semantic retrieval, without any trait annotations at inference.