Large Language Models (LLMs) still exhibit limited capability in following complex instructions. While existing approaches often rely on preference learning to enhance this ability, they typically overlook the relationships between the permissible response spaces of different instructions, which restricts a model to align with subtle and diverse constraint variations. To address this, we propose Cross-Relational Preference Learning (CRPL), a novel framework for constructing preference data that explicitly models inter-instruction relationships through two key techniques: Cross-Relationship Perturbation and Cross-Region Pair Sampling. This enables the generation of more diverse preference data that captures a wide spectrum of constraint variations. Additionally, we introduce an atomic constraint-based verification mechanism to rigorously assess response satisfaction, ensuring high-quality preference pair construction. Extensive experiments across multiple preference learning methods (e.g., DPO, KTO), LLM backbones and four instruction-following benchmarks demonstrate that our approach achieves substantial improvements over prior baselines and exhibits strong generalization.
On-policy self-distillation improves language-model reasoning by querying a teacher on states actually visited by the student. Recent methods create a powerful information asymmetry by exposing the teacher to privileged context, yet they fundamentally rely on external supervision---such as gold solutions or verifiers---to construct this advantage. We introduce CoDA (Consensus and Disagreement Alignment), a fully unsupervised framework that creates reliable privileged information entirely from the latent uncertainty structure of a model's own unlabeled rollouts. CoDA extracts two complementary signals. In the positive branch, answer-level consensus identifies a stable reasoning mode, which conditions a frozen self-teacher to provide dense distributional guidance on fresh student trajectories. However, because agreement does not guarantee correctness, positive-only distillation risks amplifying correlated errors into a false consensus. To break this harmful feedback loop, CoDA incorporates a negative branch that exploits disagreement: minority trajectories are treated as unstable alternatives and gently penalized via a reference-anchored, KTO-style calibration objective. This unpaired binary feedback provides robust regularization without requiring the strong assumption that the consensus is the absolute ground truth. Empirical evaluations on competition-level mathematical benchmarks demonstrate that CoDA significantly improves reasoning, outperforming self-generated baselines and effectively stabilizing training against erroneous consensus.
Recent advances in large language models and agent-based recommendation frameworks have introduced new opportunities for more flexible and context-aware recommendation. However, existing methods still largely rely on semantic matching, end-to-end generation, or loosely structured agent workflows, without explicitly modeling how user preferences are processed and translated into final decisions. To address this limitation, we propose CARA, a cognitively inspired recommendation framework that formulates recommendation as a structured decision-making process. The core intuition of CARA is that user decisions are jointly shaped by two complementary mechanisms: intuitive affective preference and deliberate rational evaluation. Accordingly, CARA organizes recommendation into two coordinated stages: candidate filtering, which narrows the search space based on coarse-grained preference constraints, and dual-perspective decision modeling, which captures recommendation decisions through affective and rational judgment. We further introduce a boundary-aware KTO strategy that prioritizes instructions the model can solve occasionally but not consistently, thereby increasing the density of informative preference signals. Extensive experiments on three Amazon Reviews domains show that CARA achieves the best performance on most evaluation metrics, with relative improvements of up to 10.15% over the baseline.