Would a Large Language Model Pay Extra for a View? Inferring Willingness to Pay from Subjective Choices

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09802v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:05:42 GMT
• Title: Would a Large Language Model Pay Extra for a View? Inferring Willingness to Pay from Subjective Choices
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in applications such as travel assistance and purchasing support.<n>We study LLM decision-making in a travel-assistant context by presenting models with choice dilemmas and analyzing their responses.<n>We show that while meaningful WTP values can be derived for larger LLMs, they also display systematic deviations at the attribute level.
• Score: 1.8759305308855918
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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. We study LLM decision-making in a travel-assistant context by presenting models with choice dilemmas and analyzing their responses using multinomial logit models to derive implied willingness to pay (WTP) estimates. These WTP values are subsequently compared to human benchmark values from the economics literature. In addition to a baseline setting, we examine how model behavior changes under more realistic conditions, including the provision of information about users' past choices and persona-based prompting. Our results show that while meaningful WTP values can be derived for larger LLMs, they also display systematic deviations at the attribute level. Additionally, they tend to overestimate human WTP overall, particularly when expensive options or business-oriented personas are introduced. Conditioning models on prior preferences for cheaper options yields valuations that are closer to human benchmarks. Overall, our findings highlight both the potential and the limitations of using LLMs for subjective decision support and underscore the importance of careful model selection, prompt design, and user representation when deploying such systems in practice.

Related papers

• When to Ask a Question: Understanding Communication Strategies in Generative AI Tools [7.445350484328613]
  We show how generative AI systems should balance inference and elicitation, characterizing the optimal amount of information to solicit before content generation.<n>We show that information elicitation can mitigate the systematic biases of preference inference, enabling the design of generative tools that better incorporate diverse user perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T20:58:09Z)
• Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering? [23.175180848107093]
  We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize.<n>We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T23:26:35Z)
• Auditing Preferences for Brands and Cultures in LLMs [9.677509409150549]
  This paper introduces ChoiceEval, a reproducible framework for auditing preferences for brands and cultures in large language models (LLMs)<n> ChoiceEval addresses two core technical challenges: generating realistic, persona-diverse evaluation queries and converting free-form outputs into comparable choice sets and quantitative preference metrics.<n>It is applied to Gemini, GPT, and DeepSeek across 10 topics spanning commerce and culture and more than 2,000 questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T21:38:39Z)
• Towards Realistic Personalization: Evaluating Long-Horizon Preference Following in Personalized User-LLM Interactions [50.70965714314064]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly serving as personal assistants, where users share complex and diverse preferences over extended interactions.<n>This work proposes RealPref, a benchmark for evaluating realistic preference-following in personalized user-LLM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T15:42:43Z)
• User-Assistant Bias in LLMs [11.825607435336776]
  Large language models (LLMs) can bias towards relying on their own or the user's information in chat history, leading to overly stubborn or agreeable behaviors in multi-turn conversations.<n>We introduce an 8k multi-turn conversation dataset $textbfUserAssist$ to benchmark, understand and manipulate the user-assistant bias in frontier LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-16T20:33:09Z)
• User-centric Subjective Leaderboard by Customizable Reward Modeling [34.40455169451943]
  We present the first User-Centric Subjective Leaderboard (USL)<n>It provides a preference-driven, dynamic ranking of large language models (LLMs) across diverse real-world scenarios.<n>Our work is built upon a thorough investigation of real human preference data, involving more than 10K subjective queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T03:39:04Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Surface Fairness, Deep Bias: A Comparative Study of Bias in Language Models [45.41676783204022]
  We investigate various proxy measures of bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that evaluating models with pre-prompted personae on a multi-subject benchmark (MMLU) leads to negligible and mostly random differences in scores.<n>With the recent trend for LLM assistant memory and personalization, these problems open up from a different angle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T08:47:40Z)
• IPO: Your Language Model is Secretly a Preference Classifier [1.8921784053120494]
  Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as the primary method for aligning large language models with human preferences.<n>We propose Implicit Preference Optimization (IPO), an alternative approach that leverages generative language models as preference classifiers.<n>Our findings demonstrate that models trained through IPO achieve performance comparable to those utilizing state-of-the-art reward models for obtaining preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T10:59:11Z)
• Disentangling Length Bias In Preference Learning Via Response-Conditioned Modeling [87.17041933863041]
  Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has achieved considerable success in aligning large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce a $textbfR$esponse-$textbfc$onditioned $textbfB$radley-$textbfT$erry (Rc-BT) model that enhances the model's capability in length bias mitigating and length instruction following.<n>We also propose the Rc-RM and Rc-DPO algorithm to leverage the Rc-BT model for reward modeling and direct policy optimization
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T14:50:25Z)
• Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments [41.25558612970942]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T09:48:53Z)
• Deep Bayesian Active Learning for Preference Modeling in Large Language Models [84.817400962262]
  We propose the Bayesian Active Learner for Preference Modeling (BAL-PM) for Preference Modeling. BAL-PM requires 33% to 68% fewer preference labels in two popular human preference datasets and exceeds previous Bayesian acquisition policies. Our experiments demonstrate that BAL-PM requires 33% to 68% fewer preference labels in two popular human preference datasets and exceeds previous Bayesian acquisition policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T13:32:43Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Eliciting Personality Traits in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being utilized by both candidates and employers in the recruitment context. This study seeks to obtain a better understanding of such models by examining their output variations based on different input prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T10:09:00Z)
• Sample Efficient Preference Alignment in LLMs via Active Exploration [63.84454768573154]
  We take advantage of the fact that one can often choose contexts at which to obtain human feedback to most efficiently identify a good policy.<n>We propose an active exploration algorithm to efficiently select the data and provide theoretical proof that it has a worst-case regret bound.<n>Our method outperforms the baselines with limited samples of human preferences on several language models and four real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-01T00:54:02Z)

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.