Gradient-Aligned Pair Selection for Personalized Preference Optimization
Organizations: Kent State University · EvenUp, USA · Auburn University
Abstract
Personalizing large language models (LLMs) requires aligning generation behavior with user-specific preferences rather than aggregate quality. While Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) provides a stable framework for preference learning, its effectiveness in personalized settings critically depends on how preference pairs are selected. Existing approaches typically rely on heuristic criteria, such as likelihood-based extremes, which decouple optimization from explicit user utility and can lead to degraded personalization. We formalize personalized preference learning as a geometry-aligned optimization problem by analyzing the first-order interaction between gradients of expected user utility and DPO update directions. Our analysis reveals that, under off-policy sampling, the DPO update transitions from a purely error-corrective signal to a reinforcement-like update when preference margins are directionally aligned with utility gradients. This perspective exposes pair selection as a geometric decision that governs whether preference optimization advances or hinders personalization. Motivated by this insight, we propose GAP-DPO (Geometry-Aligned Preference DPO), an iterative algorithm that performs utility-aware, geometry-aligned pair selection while controlling distribution shift via epoch-wise regeneration. Experiments on personalized text generation benchmarks show that GAP-DPO consistently improves stylistic fidelity, preference alignment, and generation quality compared to standard DPO variants. Together, our results establish gradient alignment as a unifying principle for personalized preference optimization and demonstrate that pair selection is an intrinsic component of the optimization geometry rather than a heuristic preprocessing step.
Figures & tables
| Symbol | Description |
|---|---|
| Input prompt (e.g., instruction or query) | |
| Textual response generated by the LLM | |
| User index | |
| user-specific context or latent preferences | |
| Target policy parameterized by | |
| , | Fixed reference (behavior) policy |
| Dataset | AG | PR | NH | AB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # Questions | 3,199 | 1,904 | 3,555 | 1,698 |
| Avg. Q Length | 256.93 | 685.08 | 146.46 | 441.02 |
| Avg. Target Length | 152.08 | 343.25 | 10.07 | 283.46 |
| Abstract Generation | Product Review | News Headline | Amazon Books | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | R-1 | R-L | M | R-1 | R-L | M | R-1 | R-L | M | R-1 | R-L | M |
| TAM | 0.3667 | 0.1900 | 0.2355 | 0.4407 | 0.2754 | 0.3222 | 0.2236 | 0.2048 | 0.1852 | 0.3079 | 0.1378 | 0.2282 |
| OPPU | 0.3753 | 0.1963 | 0.2368 | 0.4597 | 0.2923 | 0.3335 | 0.2268 | 0.2084 | 0.1907 | 0.3386 | 0.1561 | 0.2537 |
| DPO | 0.2492 | 0.1096 | 0.2025 | 0.3269 | 0.1269 | 0.2344 | 0.1641 | 0.1519 | 0.1382 | 0.3320 | 0.1353 | 0.3137 |
| CoPE | 0.2359 | 0.1072 | 0.1954 | 0.3921 | 0.2258 | 0.3047 | 0.1116 | 0.1009 | 0.1130 | 0.3412 | 0.1405 | 0.3106 |
| DICE | 0.4173 | 0.2446 | 0.2956 | 0.4637 | 0.2917 | 0.3572 | 0.1957 | 0.1810 | 0.1821 | 0.3394 | 0.1460 | 0.2419 |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Movies & TV | CDs & Vinyl | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | R-1 | R-L | M | R-1 | R-L | M |
| DPO | 0.3551 | 0.1540 | 0.2748 | 0.3712 | 0.1653 | 0.2748 |
| IPO | 0.2521 | 0.1173 | 0.1680 | 0.1606 | 0.0887 | 0.1104 |
| CPO | 0.3195 | 0.1371 | 0.2516 | 0.3588 | 0.1586 | 0.2673 |
| KTO | 0.3523 | 0.1564 | 0.2567 | 0.3637 | 0.1660 | 0.2557 |
| ORPO | 0.3448 | 0.1530 | 0.2449 | 0.3537 | 0.1635 | 0.2410 |
| Other Users’ Reviews as Negatives | LLM-Generated Negatives | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | R-1 | R-L | M | R-1 | R-L | M |
| TAM | 0.3079 | 0.1378 | 0.2282 | 0.3079 | 0.1378 | 0.2282 |
| OPPU | 0.3654 | 0.1784 | 0.2902 | 0.3654 | 0.1784 | 0.2902 |
| DPO | 0.3597 | 0.1520 | 0.3233 | 0.3320 | 0.1353 | 0.3137 |
| CoPE | 0.3333 | 0.1519 | 0.2731 | 0.3412 | 0.1405 | 0.3106 |
| DICE | 0.3023 | 0.1223 | 0.2448 | 0.3394 | 0.1460 | 0.2419 |
| Abstract Generation | Product Review | News Headline | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | R-1 | R-L | METEOR | R-1 | R-L | METEOR | R-1 | R-L | METEOR |
| OPPU | 0.3753 | 0.1963 | 0.2368 | 0.4597 | 0.2923 | 0.3335 | 0.2268 | 0.2084 | 0.1907 |
| DICE | 0.3726 | 0.1969 | 0.2340 | 0.4633 | 0.2908 | 0.3424 | 0.2321 | 0.2078 | 0.1886 |
| CoPE | 0.3695 | 0.1909 | 0.2373 | 0.4203 | 0.2337 | 0.3018 | 0.1997 | 0.1854 | 0.1686 |
| UG (Ours) | 0.3898 | 0.2105 | 0.2570 | 0.4817 | 0.3047 | 0.3580 | 0.2319 | 0.2121 | 0.1959 |
| EG-UG (Ours) | 0.3906 | 0.2071 | 0.2576 | 0.4821 | 0.3024 | 0.3575 | 0.2416 | 0.2246 | 0.2018 |
| Abstract Generation Tasks | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 | Task 4 | Task 5 | |||||
| A | Q | A | Q | A | Q | A | Q | A | Q | |
| TAM | 8 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| OPPU | 6 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 8 |
| DPO | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| CoPE | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 |
Preference Optimization
Preference optimization aligns AI systems with human or task-specific judgments by training them to favor better-ranked outputs.
See all 155 papers