VISTA: Steering LLMs with Latent User Values Inferred from a Few Survey Answers
Organizations: University of Michigan · Kitware Inc.
Abstract
Personalizing a language model requires knowing what a person values, which stays largely consistent across tasks. Yet most methods either learn task-specific preferences or place the user's profile in the prompt, where models struggle to act on it. We introduce VISTA (Value-Informed Steering and Targeted Acquisition), which infers a latent profile from users' (full or partial) survey answers, and maps the profile through a hypernetwork to a user-specific steering intervention in a frozen LLM to select answer choices or generate free-text responses. Given the same evidence, VISTA matches or beats in-context profiles on synthetic preferences (Food2D), the World Values Survey (WVS), and PrimeX, without adding prompt tokens. To reduce the cognitive burden of completing full surveys, VISTA also chooses which questions to ask and when to stop: on WVS it stops after 6% of the questionnaire while retaining 94% of the full-history gain, where standard adaptive testing retains at most 42%. The dominant steering direction is an interpretable value axis on which VISTA places unseen users accurately. Our results point toward pluralistic alignment that adapts to individuals at deployable cost.
Figures & tables
| Trials | Converged (NLL ) | Best | Median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 6 | 2/6 | 0.0296 | 0.5061 |
| 32 | 3 | 3/3 | 0.0398 | 0.0455 |
| 64 | 6 | 4/6 | 0.0460 | 0.0507 |
| Free bits | Val. NLL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | 0.1066 | 2.6 | 0.362 | 9.7 | 0.0296 |
| 16 | 0.0317 | 1.3 | 0.333 | 7.8 | 0.0360 |
| 32 | 0.2143 | 0.97 | 0.862 | 3.6 | 0.0398 |
| 32 | 0.0929 | 4.4 | 0.190 | 8.0 | 0.0455 |
| 64 | 0.1881 | 7.6 | 0.158 | 12 | 0.0460 |
| 64 | 0.0819 | 0.11 | 0.595 | 8.2 | 0.0491 |
| Layer | Variant | Blocks | Val. user-specific [95% CI] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | no_context | 8 | 1.235 | ||
| 10 | no_context | 4 | 1.476 | ||
| 10 | no_context | 4 | 1.282 | ||
| 10 | no_context | 2 | 0.831 | ||
| 6 | no_context | 8 | 0.692 | ||
| 10 | no_context | 2 | 0.940 |
| Person-cond. ( ) | Population | Shuffled | Gain vs pop. | Gain vs shuf. | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Method | All | Cont. | All | Cont. | All | Cont. | All | Cont. | All | Cont. |
| Food2D | VISTA-VI | 0.625 | 0.624 | 0.497 | 0.494 | 0.511 | 0.513 | +12.8* | +13.0* | +11.4* | +11.1* |
| [+11.0, +14.5] | [+11.1, +14.8] | [+9.1, +13.8] | [+8.8, +13.5] | ||||||||
| PAL | 0.600 | 0.599 | 0.497 | 0.494 | 0.508 | 0.507 | +10.4* | +10.5* | +9.3* | +9.2* | |
| [+8.4, +12.2] | [+8.5, +12.5] | [+7.2, +11.4] | [+7.0, +11.4] | ||||||||
| LoRe | 0.591 | 0.591 | 0.497 | 0.494 | 0.507 | 0.506 | +9.4* | +9.7* | +8.4* | +8.5* | |
| All pairs | Contested items | ||||||||||
| Accuracy (%) | Gain (pts) | Accuracy (%) | Gain (pts) | ||||||||
| Data | System | Steer. | Pop. | Shuf. | vs pop. | vs shuf. | Steer. | Pop. | Shuf. | vs pop. | vs shuf. |
| WVS7 UK+US 848 resp. cont. | VISTA | 64.87 | 63.31 | 62.58 | [+1.21, +1.91] | +2.28 [+1.84, +2.72] | 55.48 | 51.93 | 51.89 | [+3.09, +4.03] | [+3.03, +4.16] |
| In-context profile | 62.25 | – | 60.44 | – | [+1.45, +2.20] | 55.16 | – | 50.56 | – | +4.60 [+4.08, +5.11] | |
| PrimeX ctx 858 people 5 folds cont. | VISTA | 63.26 | 60.85 | 58.00 | [+1.70, +3.10] | +5.26 [+4.15, +6.35] | 59.99 | 56.61 | 53.80 | [+2.36, +4.34] | +6.19 [+4.79, +7.56] |
| In-context profile | 62.85 | – | 60.21 | – | [+1.88, +3.39] | 59.36 | – | 55.68 | – | [+2.63, +4.75] | |
| Minority-view rows (38%) | Majority-view rows (62%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System | Accuracy | Gain | Change | Net gain |
| In-context LLM | 18.1 | +15.4 | 7.8 | +1.1 |
| Text-pooled + HS | 15.6 | +10.6 | 5.0 | +1.0 |
| PAL + HS | 19.1 | +13.0 | 6.6 | +1.0 |
| VPL + HS (ours) | 24.4 | +11.2 | 3.7 | +2.0 |
| Minority-view rows (27%) | Majority-view rows (73%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| System | Accuracy | Gain | Change | Net gain |
| Text-pooled + HS | 32.1 | 2.8 | 0.2 † | 0.6 |
| PAL + HS | 43.0 | 9.4 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| VPL + HS (ours) | 40.7 | 6.4 | 0.3 † | 1.6 |
| In-context LLM ‡ | 16.3 | 2.0 | 5.6 | 3.5 |
| Q: What’s your view on the federal government’s role in providing retirement income? | |
| User’s answer: Adequate retirement income is not the federal government’s responsibility to provide (minority view) | |
| Real explanation | It is something that is more the individual responsibility with a little help from government but people need to be responsible for themselves |
| Unsteered (no side) | A timely and thought-provoking question! The role of the federal government in providing retirement income is a complex and debated topic. Here’s my neutral AI perspective: Pros of government involvement: … |
| Persona prompting (other side) | I think the federal government should take a more active role in providing retirement income. It seems to me that what happens in life is not always meant to happen, and it’s only natural … |
| Ours (user’s side) | They have no business being involved in retirement income. |
| Q: What’s your view on modern medical treatments and whether they are worth their costs? | |
Personalized Language Model Alignment
Personalized language model alignment adapts model behavior to individual preferences while preserving safety, accuracy, and other shared constraints.
See all 61 papers