arXiv:2606. 22974v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure.
By Yujun Zhou, Christopher M. Ackerman
arXiv:2602. 09802v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications such as travel assistance and purchasing support, they are often required to make subjective choices on behalf of users in settings where no objectively correct answer exists.
By Manon Reusens, Sofie Goethals, Toon Calders, David Martens
arXiv:2606. 30412v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: From housing allocation for households experiencing homelessness to triage in emergency departments, LLMs are increasingly being considered as judges of consequential decisions that require ranking people for scarce resources.
By Gaurab Pokharel, Shafkat Farabi, Patrick J. Fowler, Sanmay Das
arXiv:2512. 03019v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Thinking Large Language Models (LLMs) used as judges for pairwise preferences remain noisy at the single-sample level, and common aggregation rules (majority vote, soft self-consistency, or instruction-based self-aggregation) are inconsistent when ties are allowed.
By Hamid Dadkhahi, Firas Trabelsi, Parker Riley, Juraj Juraska, Mehdi Mirzazadeh
arXiv:2607. 02672v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.
By Bailey Flanigan, Michelle Si
arXiv:2602. 13110v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as scalable judges in pairwise evaluation, but they remain prone to miscalibration and biases.
By Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad