General-purpose embeddings trained on profile similarity often misrank candidates in professional networks, where relevance is inherently complementary rather than symmetric. For example, job seekers usually engage with recruiters rather than peers with similar credentials. Current user recommendation systems are often built on profile similarity or social signals such as shared connections, which are effective in friend-oriented social networks where users tend to connect with similar people or within existing social circles. However, this does not hold in professional platforms like LinkedIn, where interactions are often goal-driven and cross-role interactions, requiring matching based on complementary intents rather than similarity or social proximity. In this paper, we propose Preference-Aligned Intent Retrieval, a retrieval framework that is designed to model user intent preference instead of profile similarity. Our approach is inspired by the preference-learning perspective of Direct Preference Optimization, but instantiates preference learning as an exposure-conditioned multi-negative contrastive objective over embeddings. This formulation simplifies training and scales efficiently to large candidate sets without requiring an explicit reference model. Furthermore, we incorporate user interaction history by aggregating click histories with positional encoding to capture temporal order, which enables constant-cost updates of user representations over a fixed history window, allowing new interactions to be incorporated without re-encoding history. As a result, personalization can be updated efficiently using lightweight CPU operations without repeated LLM inference during serving. We evaluate PAIR on LinkedIn's Premium retrieval task. A 0.6B parameter model achieves a MAR@100 of 0.45.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Preference-Aligned Intent Retrieval architecture. The model adopts a triple-tower design. The profile tower and document tower share parameters to encode query and candidate profiles. The history tower aggregates recent interaction embeddings using positional attention to capture short-term behavioral intent. The final query representation combines static profile identity and dynamic intent through normalized additive fusion, enabling efficient history updates without re-encoding the full profile through the LLM.
Model
ACC ↑
MAR@25 ↑
MAR@100 ↑
Baselines
Holistic-171
0.794
0.169
0.288
Off-the-shelf 0.6B embedding
0.771
0.100
0.192
PAIR fine-tuned from the 0.6B encoder
Two-tower
0.960
0.255
0.436
+ Max history
0.963
0.252
0.430
Table 1. Main results on Premium user retrieval. Off-the-shelf models are evaluated without fine-tuning. PAIR models are fine-tuned from the 0.6B embedding encoder. ACC is computed over 4 candidates consisting of 1 positive and 3 negatives. MAR@ k is evaluated on a fixed pool of 100 candidates.
Method
MAR@100 ↑
Update Cost
Operations
No history
0.436
–
Static profile only
Max pooling
0.430
O(Kd)
Element-wise max
Mean pooling
0.430
O(Kd)
Element-wise mean
GeM pooling
0.447
O(Kd)
Power mean
Attention
0.431
O(Kd)
Dot product + softmax + weighted sum
P-ATT
0.450
O(Kd)
Positional encoding + dot product + softmax + weighted sum
Table 2. History aggregation tradeoff. All history methods aggregate K=10 precomputed history embeddings with 1024 dimensions. None require LLM re-inference during history updates.
Dim
MAR@100 ↑
Rel. Storage
Rel. Latency
Intended Surface
200
0.421
0.20 ×
0.35 ×
Candidate pre-filtering
256
0.432
0.25 ×
0.40 ×
Latency-sensitive channels
512
0.444
0.50 ×
0.65 ×
Standard retrieval
1024
0.450
1.00 ×
1.00 ×
Premium Browsemaps
Table 3. Matryoshka dimension-quality tradeoff. All variants are produced by a single PAIR model trained with joint Matryoshka loss. Relative storage is normalized to the 1024-dimensional embedding. Relative latency is based on dimension-dependent retrieval cost and fixed serving overhead.
Metric
Relative Change
Click-through rate (CTR)
+7.5% ∗
Premium retention rate
+2.1% ∗
Page load latency
+0.1%
Recommendation coverage
-0.2%
Table 4. Online A/B test results on Premium Browsemaps. Treatment: PAIR with P-ATT history augmentation at 1024 dimensions. Control: production Holistic-171 embedding. Both arms use the same downstream ranker. Metrics are reported as relative changes over the control group. Statistical significance under the production experimentation framework is indicated by ∗ .