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
x∈X
Input prompt (e.g., instruction or query)
y∈Y
Textual response generated by the LLM
u
User index
hu
user-specific context or latent preferences
πθ(y∣x;hu)
Target policy parameterized by θ
πref(y∣x;hu) , π0
Fixed reference (behavior) policy
Table 1: Summary of notation used throughout the paper. Conditioning on (x,hu) is omitted when unambiguous.
Algorithm 1 GAP-DPO: Off-Policy DPO with Utility-Aware Pair Selection
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
Table 2: Dataset statistics for the four evaluation tasks. AG = Abstract Generation, PR = Product Review, NH = News Headline, AB = Amazon Books.
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
Table 3: Performance comparison with different methods across four personalized content generation datasets. All results are evaluated using ROUGE-1 (R-1), ROUGE-L (R-L), and METEOR (M). Best results are in bold; underlined values indicate the best baseline or second-best result.
Figure 1: Ablation studies of training strategies and hyperparameter sensitivity.
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
Appendix
Table 4: Preliminary comparison of reinforcement learning algorithms on two Amazon review generation tasks.
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
Appendix
Table 5: Performance comparison between synthetic Negatives vs. real-user Negatives on Amazon Book Dataset. We compare using other users’ real reviews as negatives versus LLM-generated synthetic negatives.
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
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of different sampling strategies under the OPPU framework across three content generation tasks.
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
Appendix
Table 7: Alignment and intrinsic quality scores across abstract generation tasks.
1Network Analysis and Social Influence Modelling (NASIM) Lab · School of Physics Maths and Computing, The University of Western Australia · School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia +1