arXiv AI
1d ago

Language Model Goal Selection Differs from Humans' in a Self-Directed Learning Task

The study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can accurately emulate human goal selection in a self‑directed learning task. Five models—GPT‑5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Qwen3 32B, and Centaur—were tested and found to diverge significantly from human behavior, often exploiting a single solution or performing poorly, with little variation across instances. Techniques such as chain‑of‑thought reasoning and persona steering offered only limited improvements, and the results were consistent across different experimental settings.

By Gaia Molinaro, Dave August, Danielle Perszyk, Anne G. E. Collins
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 31

Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

arXiv:2604. 07343v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: 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.

By Qiyao Ma, Dechen Gao, Rui Cai, Boqi Zhao, Hanchu Zhou, Junshan Zhang, Zhe Zhao
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 30

Better Behavioral Prediction, More Faithful Model Ablations? Evidence from Sequential Choice

The paper investigates whether input ablations on predictive models can reliably reveal the importance of information for explaining human sequential choice behavior. Using two synthetic bandit tasks with known generating policies, the authors compare GRUs, Transformers, a fine‑tuned LLaMA, and cognitive models under varied reward contributions. They find that while neural models can predict choices well, their responses to ablations often diverge from the true generating process, indicating that predictive accuracy alone does not guarantee faithful model ablations.

By Hanbo Xie