arXiv:2607. 02672v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 16232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of statistical learning algorithms to infer human preferences from high-dimensional choice data runs up against a fundamental challenge: choice alternatives typically differ in many ways simultaneously, so it is generally unclear which factors actually drove an observed decision and should be credited as preferences.
JudgeProfile is a framework that analyzes the subjectivity of large language model (LLM) judges by separating evaluation into perception—how judges compare responses on attributes such as clarity, correctness, and detail—and prioritization—how much each attribute influences the final decision. Using the curated SubjectiveSet dataset of 50,013 response pairs evaluated by 21 judges across 87 attributes, the study finds that judges often agree on attribute judgments even when their overall choices differ. By estimating and adjusting attribute weights, the authors improve agreement with reference labels from 66.48% to 71.97%, outperforming fine‑tuning and rubric prompting.
The paper argues that language models’ intransitive preferences arise from multiple internally consistent latent orderings rather than noise around a single ordering. By demonstrating that a single ordering cannot explain observed inconsistencies and introducing a noise‑augmented mixture Bradley‑Terry model, the authors show that mixtures of orderings better capture preference structure across several models and tasks. A case study on Moral Machine dilemmas further illustrates that models can share latent components even when aggregate preferences differ.
The paper examines how Preference Inference (PI) models used in large-scale participatory democracy platforms can alter the perceived consensus and minority support by predicting missing votes. It introduces a collective‑centric evaluation framework that assesses whether inferred votes maintain key properties of the overall preference landscape, rather than focusing solely on individual prediction accuracy. Using the largest multilingual dataset to date—four consultations with over 90,000 participants, 1 million votes, and 22 languages—the study finds that models with similar predictive accuracy can differ markedly in how well they preserve the collective structure, underscoring that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating PI in democratic contexts.
arXiv:2609.38860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Learning from human preferences is central to large language model (LLM) alignment, but human preference annotation is costly. Active preference lear...
arXiv:2506. 14092v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in decision-support systems for high-stakes domains such as hiring and university admissions, where choices often involve selecting among competing alternatives.