Implementing Rational Choice Functions with LLMs and Measuring their Alignment with User Preferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15719v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 09:08:21 GMT
• Title: Implementing Rational Choice Functions with LLMs and Measuring their Alignment with User Preferences
• Authors: Anna Karnysheva, Christian Drescher, Dietrich Klakow,
• Abstract summary: We put forward design principles for using large language models to implement rational choice functions.<n>We demonstrate the applicability of our approach through an empirical study in a practical application of an IUI in the automotive domain.
• Score: 15.72977233489024
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) become integral to intelligent user interfaces (IUIs), their role as decision-making agents raises critical concerns about alignment. Although extensive research has addressed issues such as factuality, bias, and toxicity, comparatively little attention has been paid to measuring alignment to preferences, i.e., the relative desirability of different alternatives, a concept used in decision making, economics, and social choice theory. However, a reliable decision-making agent makes choices that align well with user preferences. In this paper, we generalize existing methods that exploit LLMs for ranking alternative outcomes by addressing alignment with the broader and more flexible concept of user preferences, which includes both strict preferences and indifference among alternatives. To this end, we put forward design principles for using LLMs to implement rational choice functions, and provide the necessary tools to measure preference satisfaction. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach through an empirical study in a practical application of an IUI in the automotive domain.

Related papers

• LISTEN to Your Preferences: An LLM Framework for Multi-Objective Selection [8.355352653283516]
  We introduce LISTEN, a framework that leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) as a zero-shot preference oracle.<n>We show LISTEN-U excels when preferences are parametrically aligned, while LISTEN-T offers more robust performance.<n>This work explores a promising direction for steering complex multi-objective decisions directly with natural language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T03:17:37Z)
• MLLM as a UI Judge: Benchmarking Multimodal LLMs for Predicting Human Perception of User Interfaces [97.62557395494962]
  We use crowdsourcing to benchmark GPT-4o, Claude, and Llama across 30 interfaces.<n>Our results show that MLLMs approximate human preferences on some dimensions but diverge on others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T20:00:41Z)
• Personalized Reasoning: Just-In-Time Personalization and Why LLMs Fail At It [81.50711040539566]
  Current large language model (LLM) development treats task-solving and preference alignment as separate challenges.<n>We introduce PREFDISCO, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks.<n>Our framework creates scenarios where identical questions require different reasoning chains depending on user context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:55:28Z)
• Personalized Recommendations via Active Utility-based Pairwise Sampling [1.704905100460915]
  We propose a utility-based framework that learns preferences from simple and intuitive pairwise comparisons.<n>A central contribution of our work is a novel utility-based active sampling strategy for preference elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-12T19:09:33Z)
• Alignment Revisited: Are Large Language Models Consistent in Stated and Revealed Preferences? [5.542420010310746]
  A critical, yet understudied, issue is the potential divergence between an LLM's stated preferences and its revealed preferences.<n>This work formally defines and proposes a method to measure this preference deviation.<n>Our study will be crucial for integrating LLMs into services, especially those that interact directly with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-31T23:38:48Z)
• Cognitive Debiasing Large Language Models for Decision-Making [71.2409973056137]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications.<n>We propose a cognitive debiasing approach, called self-debiasing, that enhances the reliability of LLMs.<n>Our method follows three sequential steps -- bias determination, bias analysis, and cognitive debiasing -- to iteratively mitigate potential cognitive biases in prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T11:23:05Z)
• Uncertain Multi-Objective Recommendation via Orthogonal Meta-Learning Enhanced Bayesian Optimization [30.031396809114625]
  We introduce a novel framework that categorizes RS autonomy into five distinct levels, ranging from basic rule-based accuracy-driven systems to behavior-aware, uncertain multi-objective RSs.<n>We propose an approach that dynamically identifies and optimize multiple objectives based on individual user preferences, fostering more ethical and intelligent user-centric recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T08:10:09Z)
• Few-shot Steerable Alignment: Adapting Rewards and LLM Policies with Neural Processes [50.544186914115045]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in everyday applications.<n> Ensuring their alignment with the diverse preferences of individual users has become a critical challenge.<n>We present a novel framework for few-shot steerable alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T16:14:59Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• MetaAlign: Align Large Language Models with Diverse Preferences during Inference Time [50.41806216615488]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) acquire extensive knowledge and remarkable abilities from extensive text corpora. To make LLMs more usable, aligning them with human preferences is essential. We propose an effective method, textbf MetaAlign, which aims to help LLMs dynamically align with various explicit or implicit preferences specified at inference time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:31:13Z)
• Pareto-Optimal Learning from Preferences with Hidden Context [17.590330740964266]
  We propose POPL, which enables pluralistic alignment by framing discrepant group preferences as objectives with potential trade-offs.<n>Our theoretical and empirical evaluations demonstrate that POPL surpasses baseline methods in learning sets of reward functions and policies.<n>We illustrate that POPL can also serve as a foundation for techniques optimizing specific notions of group fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-21T18:57:38Z)
• Balancing Rigor and Utility: Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models for Multiple-Choice Questions [0.46873264197900916]
  We show that certain cognitive biases can enhance decision-making efficiency through rational deviations and shortcuts.<n>By introducing moderation and an abstention option, we reduce error rates, improve decision accuracy, and optimize decision rates.<n>This approach offers a novel way to leverage cognitive biases to improve the practical utility of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T16:25:22Z)
• Prompting Fairness: Integrating Causality to Debias Large Language Models [19.76215433424235]
  Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to generating biased and discriminatory responses.<n>We propose a causality-guided debiasing framework to tackle social biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T17:46:28Z)
• Bayesian Preference Elicitation with Language Models [82.58230273253939]
  We introduce OPEN, a framework that uses BOED to guide the choice of informative questions and an LM to extract features. In user studies, we find that OPEN outperforms existing LM- and BOED-based methods for preference elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T18:57:52Z)
• Relative Preference Optimization: Enhancing LLM Alignment through Contrasting Responses across Identical and Diverse Prompts [95.09994361995389]
  Relative Preference Optimization (RPO) is designed to discern between more and less preferred responses derived from both identical and related prompts. RPO has demonstrated a superior ability to align large language models with user preferences and to improve their adaptability during the training process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T22:47:57Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.