# You Can't Prefer Emotions You Don't Sample: Intensity Undershoot in DPO-Tuned LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07808 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07808/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 18 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00190/) (2021)
- [The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08691/) (2021)
- [DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03654/) (2020)
- [A Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1510.03055/) (2015)
- [Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.02164/) (2019)
- [CTRL: A Conditional Transformer Language Model for Controllable Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.05858/) (2019)
- [Understanding the Effects of RLHF on LLM Generalisation and Diversity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06452/) (2023)
- [Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06657/) (2023)
- [Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14367/) (2024)
- [Emotional Chatting Machine: Emotional Conversation Generation with Internal and External Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.01074/) (2017)
- [EmoBank: Studying the Impact of Annotation Perspective and Representation Format on Dimensional Emotion Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.01996/) (2022)
- [Affect-LM: A Neural Language Model for Customizable Affective Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.06851/) (2017)
- [Valence-Arousal Subspace in LLMs: Circular Emotion Geometry and Multi-Behavioral Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03147/) (2026)
- [Don't Get Too Excited -- Eliciting Emotions in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.02457/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Ask a language model to respond "very excitedly," and its output is typically only mildly more energetic. We quantify this effect. We condition an instruction-tuned LLM on a continuous Valence-Arousal (VA) target, where valence measures how pleasant a state is and arousal how activated it is, measure the achieved affect with a frozen regressor, and sweep the requested target from -1 to +1. The response moves far less than asked: the gain, the slope of achieved against requested affect, is only 0.26 for valence and 0.13 for arousal on Llama-3.1-8B, where a faithful controller would score 1. The model systematically undershoots requested emotional intensity, which puts a number on the qualitative observation of Fazzi et al. (2025). Our experiments trace this to the preference-learning pipeline. Training targets from natural corpora such as EmoBank are neutral-heavy, and the sampled candidates themselves rarely reach extreme affect, so Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is left with no extreme exemplar to prefer. If instead we cover the target space uniformly and sample a hotter, larger candidate pool, valence gain rises from 0.26 to 0.40 +/- 0.02 (3 seeds) and extrapolation error drops, at only a modest in-distribution cost (EmoBank-test VA distance 0.092 to 0.107). The same recipe reproduces on Qwen3-8B (gain_v 0.44, with in-distribution accuracy preserved). Arousal is harder and less reliable: its gain barely moves on average and swings across seeds (0.14 +/- 0.07, against valence's tight +/- 0.02), because raising arousal needs candidates the base model is reluctant to generate. The evidence indicates that faithful intensity is bottlenecked by the extremity of the candidate pool rather than by the conditioning format.