Meet Dynamic Individual Preferences: Resolving Conflicting Human Value with Paired Fine-Tuning

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the alignment of models with general human preferences. However, a major challenge remains in adapting LLMs to individual preferences, which are not only diverse but also dynamic. In this paper, we introduce a novel framework, Preference-Paired Fine-Tuning (PFT), designed to align models with contradictory and evolving individual preferences. We present a new dataset, Value Conflict Dilemma (VCD), which includes scenarios that involve conflicting human preferences, facilitating the evaluation of our approach. Our experiments demonstrate that PFT outperforms single-preference training methods, achieving up to 96.6% accuracy in multi-choice classification tasks and the highest open-ended generation score of 8.69. PFT also shows significant improvements over DPO, SFT and some traditional training methods, especially when handling conflicting preferences. Additionally, with limited user history data, models can inferring preference vector rapidly, achieving a 44.76% improvement in user-specific preference alignment in comparison to single-preference models.

DecisionFlow: Advancing Large Language Model as Principled Decision Maker

In high-stakes domains such as healthcare and finance, effective decision-making demands not just accurate outcomes but transparent and explainable reasoning. However, current language models often lack the structured deliberation needed for such tasks, instead generating decisions and justifications in a disconnected, post-hoc manner. To address this, we propose DecisionFlow, a novel decision modeling framework that guides models to reason over structured representations of actions, attributes, and constraints. Rather than predicting answers directly from prompts, DecisionFlow builds a semantically grounded decision space and infers a latent utility function to evaluate trade-offs in a transparent, utility-driven manner. This process produces decisions tightly coupled with interpretable rationales reflecting the model's reasoning. Empirical results on two high-stakes benchmarks show that DecisionFlow not only achieves up to 30% accuracy gains over strong prompting baselines but also enhances alignment in outcomes. Our work is a critical step toward integrating symbolic reasoning with LLMs, enabling more accountable, explainable, and reliable LLM decision support systems. We release the data and code at https://github.com/xiusic/DecisionFlow.