mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Balancing Privacy, Utility, and Safety in LLM Alignment through Preference Optimization

arXiv 2608.30141 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Preference optimization is widely used to align large language models with human preferences, but preference-data composition may also influence privacy-relevant memorization. We examine whether adding synthetic privacy-preference pairs to Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is associated with lower canary-based memorization signals without modifying the objective or introducing a formal privacy mechanism. We propose Privacy-Pressure Preference Mixing (P3M), a data-composition protocol that varies the amount of privacy-preference data while keeping helpfulness and harmlessness preference data fixed. We evaluate a non-privacy Baseline and privacy-mixing ratios of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 using Gemma 3 270M-IT across five random seeds and validate the same four conditions using 4-bit-quantized Gemma 2 2B-IT across three seeds. Overall, under the tested conditions, privacy-preference mixing is associated with lower mean canary suffix log-likelihood proxy values across both model settings and lower aggregate membership-inference attack performance relative to the Baseline in the mixed-source 2B evaluation. Specifically, across the privacy-aware 2B configurations, the mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) ranges from 0.596 to 0.629, and the mean area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) ranges from 0.541 to 0.575, compared with 0.804 and 0.790, respectively, for the Baseline. However, the reduction in membership distinguishability does not hold uniformly across data sources. Moreover, the relationship between the privacy ratio and harmlessness preference accuracy varies by model setting, whereas helpfulness preference accuracy remains broadly stable. These findings suggest that P3M should be viewed as a lightweight empirical protocol for examining privacy-utility-safety trade-offs rather than as a formal privacy guarantee or a defense against extraction attacks.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 19 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

Builds on

19 of 19 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Differentially Private Preference Data Synthesis for Large Language Model Alignment29 May
  2. 2025Towards User-level Private Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback22 Feb
  3. 2024FedRLHF: A Convergence-Guaranteed Federated Framework for Privacy-Preserving and Personalized RLHF20 Dec
  4. 2024Exposing Privacy Gaps: Membership Inference Attack on Preference Data for LLM Alignment8 Jul
  5. 2024Privacy-Preserving Instructions for Aligning Large Language Models21 Feb
  6. 2023Privately Aligning Language Models with Reinforcement Learning25 Oct
  7. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedback2 Sep

Other references · 12

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  4. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  5. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  6. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
  7. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
  8. 2018The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Unintended Memorization in Neural Networkscited by 847
  9. 2022Quantifying Memorization Across Neural Language Modelscited by 755
  10. 2023Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 630
  11. 2024Measuring memorization in RLHF for code completioncited by 12
  12. 2024More RLHF, More Trust? On The Impact of Preference Alignment On Trustworthinesscited by 9

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Private Direct Preference Optimization for LLM Alignment
  2. 2025Improved Algorithms for Differentially Private Language Model Alignment
  3. 2025PROPS: Progressively Private Self-alignment of Large Language Models
  4. 2025LLM-as-a-Judge for Privacy Evaluation? Exploring the Alignment of Human and LLM Perceptions of Privacy in Textual Data
  5. 2025SquarechiPO: Differentially Private and Robust chi2-Preference Optimization in Offline Direct Alignment
  6. 2026Privacy Without Regret: Differentially Private Inference-Time Alignment
  7. 2026Preference Data Selection for Mitigating the Alignment Tax in Large Language Models
  8. 2024Undesirable Memorization in Large Language Models: A Survey