Personalized Reward Modeling

Personalized reward models require user-specific preference comparisons, but collecting such feedback is costly and provides only limited supervision for each user. At the same time, large pools of responses can be generated without user identities or preference labels, yet existing personalized reward models leave this data unused. Directly learning from these responses is difficult because pairwise objectives constrain relative scores within a prompt, whereas pseudo-labeling individual responses requires scores that are comparable across prompts for the same user. We propose PerSPL (Personalized Semi-supervised Preference Learning), a backbone-agnostic framework that uses pair-mean score centering to stabilize this cross-prompt score coordinate and iteratively turns unlabeled responses into user-specific training signals. Against seven representative baselines across four benchmarks---PersonalLLM, HelpSteer2, Reddit TLDR, and Chatbot Arena---PerSPL achieves the highest reported mean accuracy among the evaluated methods for both seen and unseen users. The two latter benchmarks provide real-user preference comparisons in summarization and open-domain chatbot interaction, respectively. These results indicate that unlabeled responses can provide additional supervision for personalized reward modeling when per-user preference labels are scarce.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) aligns large language models (LLMs) with human preferences, yet most pipelines learn a single reward model that overlooks individual differences in preferences. Personalized reward models (PRMs) address this by conditioning rewards on user-specific feedback, most commonly through in-context learning (ICL), where a user's historical comparisons are supplied as contextual preference pairs. However, we identify a key limitation of ICL-based PRMs: they fail to capture the preference relations conveyed by contextual pairs. To address this, we propose Preference-Aligned Test-Time Training (P-TTT), which explicitly encodes these relations into user-specific fast weights for personalized reward prediction. P-TTT introduces sequence-level update and apply operations to match the response-level granularity of preference feedback, together with a preference-aligned objective that directly uses pairwise preference relations to guide fast-weight adaptation. Notably, P-TTT is simple to implement and computationally efficient, updating fast weights within a single forward pass without inference-time backpropagation. Extensive experiments show that P-TTT more effectively captures historical preference relations and outperforms state-of-the-art methods by a large margin.

Learning a reward model from human feedback and optimizing a policy against it is one approach to aligning AI systems with individual users. From a fairness perspective, existing work improves such alignment by developing data-efficient and accurate reward models that capture minority preferences despite scarce data. We push this line of inquiry one step further and argue that data-efficient and accurate per-user reward models are not sufficient: users whose reward models are difficult to optimize at the policy level can become a new underserved group. We start from the observation that one user's reward model can be easy to optimize from the initial policy while another's is not. We argue that, given a sufficiently diverse user population, a curriculum naturally emerges between easy- and hard-to-optimize reward models. Building on this insight, we propose CurriPO, which grows a tree-structured curriculum to accommodate diverse user-specific objectives, covering the population in a single traversal. Specifically, CurriPO automatically constructs a curriculum over diverse user reward models, allowing it to branch from the existing curriculum and reuse reward models previously incorporated into the curriculum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to explicitly exploit multi-user structure to address optimization in AI alignment. Extensive experiments on personalized continuous control in a simulated environment show that CurriPO achieves $1.2$--$2.1\times$ the population satisfaction of the strongest baseline while substantially reducing training time. Additional analysis attributes much of this improvement to the users left underserved by conventional optimization.

Automatic portrait retouching has advanced rapidly, yet its objective is inherently subjective: the same portrait admits multiple professionally valid results, and users disagree about which one is best. Most existing methods optimize a population-level aesthetic standard and therefore cannot capture individual taste, while fine-tuning a separate editing model for every user incurs prohibitive training, storage, and data costs. We propose PALATE, a shared reward-evolution framework that keeps the image editor fixed and instead personalizes the selection among retouched candidates of the same source portrait. PALATE decomposes the reward for each user into a global backbone shared by all users, category-level residuals shared by aesthetically similar users, and a lightweight user adapter, with anti-collapse regularizers keeping the three levels complementary.A cyclic dual-level distillation scheme first distills user-specific preferences into category rewards and then consolidates the resulting category-level knowledge into the global backbone, which is redistributed to initialize the next evolution round. In this way, the shared initialization improves progressively across rounds, enabling unseen users to be calibrated from only a few rankings. On expert-retouched candidates from PPR10K with held-out users and held-out images, PALATE attains 72.83% pairwise preference-prediction accuracy, surpassing all reward, aesthetic, and image-quality baselines, of which the strongest, PickScore, reaches 58.06%. Each new user costs only 512 bytes of user-specific parameters and millisecond-level scoring.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on reward models to align their outputs with diverse user preferences. While personalized reward models aim to capture such heterogeneity, they are often trained on imbalanced user preference data and may therefore favor users whose preferences are more common in the training population. In this paper, we identify this failure mode as personalized reward bias, where reward modeling quality varies systematically with preference support rate. We formulate its mitigation as a Pareto fairness problem over group utilities, aiming to improve under-served users without degrading other user groups. To this end, we propose PAFO, a Pareto fairness optimization framework for personalized reward modeling. PAFO first trains group-specialized reward models for majority and minority preference groups, then constructs conditional margin-level supervision to distill their heterogeneous preference boundaries into a single unified model. The resulting model uses group information only during training and requires no explicit group labels at inference time. Experiments on Personal-LLM and DSP show that PAFO improves both minority-group and majority-group accuracy while reducing user-level unfairness across multiple metrics, demonstrating its effectiveness for fairer LLM personalization.

Existing approaches to LLM personalization focus on constructing better personalized models or inputs, while treating inference as a single-shot process. In this work, we study Test-Time Personalization (TTP) along an unexplored axis: scaling inference-time computation by sampling N candidates from a personalized policy model and selecting the best with a personalized reward model. We prove that oracle selection yields expected utility growing logarithmically with the number of sampled candidates, establishing a theoretical ceiling for test-time scaling. However, standard reward models fail to realize this potential. To diagnose why, we derive a unified scaling law that decomposes any reward model's Best-of-N curve into four measurable quantities and reveals two failure modes, user-level collapse (near-constant prediction for some users) and query-level reward hacking (negative correlation with true quality for some queries). Guided by this law, we propose a probabilistic personalized reward model whose learned variance effectively mitigates both failure modes. Experiments confirm both elements of our framework: TTP delivers consistent scaling across multiple policy models and personalized text generation tasks, and our scaling law closely matches observed scaling curves across reward-model variants.

Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values. While benchmarks for general response quality are prevalent, evaluating how well reward models account for individual user preferences remains an open challenge. To bridge this gap, we introduce Personalized RewardBench, a novel benchmark designed to rigorously assess reward models' capacity to model personalized preferences. We construct chosen and rejected response pairs based on strict adherence to (or violation of) user-specific rubrics, ensuring that preference distinctions are uniquely tailored to the individual. In particular, human evaluations confirm that the primary discriminative factor between pairs is strictly personal preference, with both responses maintaining high general quality (e.g., correctness, relevance and helpfulness). Extensive testing reveals that existing state-of-the-art reward models struggle significantly with personalization, peaking at an accuracy of just 75.94%. Crucially, because an effective reward model benchmark should predict a reward model's performance on downstream tasks, we conduct experiments demonstrating that our benchmark exhibits a significantly higher correlation with downstream performance in both Best-of-N (BoN) sampling and Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) compared to existing baselines. These findings establish Personalized RewardBench as a robust and accurate proxy for evaluating reward models' performance in downstream applications.

Modern text-to-image (T2I) models generate high-fidelity visuals but remain indifferent to individual user preferences. While existing reward models optimize for "average" human appeal, they fail to capture the inherent subjectivity of aesthetic judgment. In this work, we introduce a novel dataset and predictive framework, called PAMELA, designed to model personalized image evaluations. Our dataset comprises 70,000 ratings across 5,000 diverse images generated by state-of-the-art models (Flux 2 and Nano Banana). Each image is evaluated by 15 unique users, providing a rich distribution of subjective preferences across domains such as art, design, fashion, and cinematic photography. Leveraging this data, we propose a personalized reward model trained jointly on our high-quality annotations and existing aesthetic assessment subsets. We demonstrate that our model predicts individual liking with higher accuracy than the majority of current state-of-the-art methods predict population-level preferences. Using our personalized predictor, we demonstrate how simple prompt optimization methods can be used to steer generations towards individual user preferences. Our results highlight the importance of data quality and personalization to handle the subjectivity of user preferences. We release our dataset and model to facilitate standardized research in personalized T2I alignment and subjective visual quality assessment.

Recent approaches in personalized reward modeling have primarily focused on leveraging user interaction history to align model judgments with individual preferences. However, existing approaches largely treat user context as a static or implicit conditioning signal, failing to capture the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of human judgment. In this paper, we propose P-Check, a novel personalized reward modeling framework, designed to train a plug-and-play checklist generator that synthesizes dynamic evaluation criteria for guiding the reward prediction. To better align these checklists with personalized nuances, we introduce Preference-Contrastive Criterion Weighting, a training strategy that assigns saliency scores to criteria based on their discriminative power for personalized judgment. We conduct extensive experiments and demonstrate that P-Check not only improves reward accuracy but also enhances downstream personalized generation, and remains robust in OOD scenarios.

Personalized alignment from preference data has focused primarily on improving personal reward model (RM) accuracy, with the implicit assumption that better preference ranking translates to better personalized behavior. However, in deployment, computational constraints necessitate inference-time adaptation such as reward-guided decoding (RGD) rather than per-user policy fine-tuning. This creates a critical but overlooked requirement: reward models must not only rank preferences accurately but also effectively guide generation. We demonstrate that standard RM accuracy fails catastrophically as a selection criterion for deployment-ready personalized rewards. We introduce policy accuracy; a metric quantifying whether RGD-adapted LLMs correctly discriminate between preferred and dispreferred responses and show that upstream RM accuracy correlates only weakly with downstream policy accuracy (Kendall's tau = 0.08--0.31). More critically, we introduce Pref-LaMP the first personalized alignment benchmark with ground-truth user completions, enabling direct behavioural evaluation. On Pref-LaMP, we expose a complete decoupling between discriminative ranking and generation metrics: methods with 20-point RM accuracy differences produce almost identical output quality, and methods with high ranking accuracy can fail to generate behaviorally aligned responses. These findings reveal that the field has been optimizing for proxy metrics that do not predict deployment performance, and that current personalized alignment methods fail to operationalize preferences into behavioral adaptation under realistic deployment constraints. In contrast, we find simple in-context learning (ICL) to be highly effective - dominating all reward-guided methods for models $\geq$3B parameters, achieving $\sim$3 point ROUGE-1 gains over the best reward method at 7B scale.