Organizations: 1Michigan State University · 2Nanyang Technological University · 3Hong Kong Baptist University · 5Communication University of China · 4UCAS · 7Imperial College London · 6ByteDance · 8Sun Yat-sen University
Abstract
Reliable models should not only predict correctly, but also justify decisions with acceptable evidence. Yet conventional supervised learning typically provides only class-level labels, allowing models to achieve high accuracy through shortcut correlations rather than the intended evidence. Human priors can help constrain such behavior, but aligning models to these priors remains challenging because learned representations often diverge from human perception. To address this challenge, we propose an attribution-based human prior alignment method. We encode human priors as input regions that the model is expected to rely on (e.g., bounding boxes), and leverage a highly faithful subset-selection-based attribution approach to expose the model's decision evidence during training. When the attribution region deviates substantially from the prior regions, we penalize reliance on off-prior evidence, encouraging the model to shift its attribution toward the intended regions. This is achieved through a training objective that imposes attribution constraints induced by the human prior. We validate our method on both image classification and click decision tasks in MLLM-based GUI agent models. Across conventional classification and autoregressive generation settings, human prior alignment consistently improves task accuracy while also enhancing the model's decision reasonability.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as reasoning modules in many applications. While they are efficient in certain tasks, LLMs often struggle to produce human-aligned solutions. Human-aligned decision making requires accounting for both explicitly stated goals and latent user preferences that shape how ambiguous situations should be resolved. Existing approaches to incorporating such preferences either rely on extensive and repeated user interactions or fail to generalize latent preferences across tasks and contexts, limiting their practical applicability. We consider a setting in which an LLM is used for high-level reasoning and is responsible for inferring latent user preferences from limited interactions, which guides downstream decision making. We introduce CLIPR (Conversational Learning for Inferring Preferences and Reasoning), a framework that learns actionable, transferable natural language rules that represent latent user preferences from minimal conversational input. These rules are iteratively refined through adaptive feedback and applied to both in-distribution and out-of-distribution ambiguous tasks across multiple environments. Evaluations on three datasets and a user study show that CLIPR consistently outperforms existing methods in improving alignment and reducing inference costs.
It is widely agreed that when AI models assist decision-makers in high-stakes domains by predicting an outcome of interest, they should communicate the confidence of their predictions. However, empirical evidence suggests that decision-makers often struggle to determine when to trust a prediction based solely on this communicated confidence. In this context, recent theoretical and empirical work suggests a positive correlation between the utility of AI-assisted decision-making and the degree of alignment between the AI confidence and the decision-makers' confidence in their own predictions. Crucially, these findings do not yet elucidate the extent to which this alignment influences the complexity of learning to make optimal decisions through repeated interactions. In this paper, we address this question in the canonical case of binary predictions and binary decisions. We first show that this problem is equivalent to a two-armed online contextual learning problem with full feedback, and establish a lower bound of Ω(∣H∣⋅∣B∣⋅T) on the expected regret any learner can attain, where H and B denote the sets of human and AI confidence values. We then demonstrate that, under perfect alignment between AI and human confidence, a learner can attain an expected regret of O(∣H∣⋅TlogT) and, when ∣H∣=O(logT) and B is countable, a non-trivial generalization of the Dvoretzky-Kiefer-Wolfowitz inequality improves the regret bound to O(TlogT). Taken together, these results reveal that alignment can reduce the complexity of learning to make decisions with AI assistance. Experiments on real data from two different human-subject studies where participants solve simple decision-making tasks assisted by AI models show that our theoretical results are robust to violations of perfect alignment.
Nina Corvelo Benz, Eleni Straitouri, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez
The alignment of large language models with human preferences is commonly achieved through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback or Direct Preference Optimization. However, these methods are vulnerable to the significant noise prevalent in real-world preference datasets. To address this critical issue, we present a theoretical framework for unbiased alignment, introducing the Unbiased Reward Model (URM) loss and the Unbiased Direct Preference Optimization (UDPO) loss. By mathematically correcting the distortion induced by preference noise, our novel objectives enable unbiased model training directly from noisy datasets, without requiring clean ground-truth supervision. We provide rigorous theoretical analyses demonstrating that our methods are noise-tolerant, parameter downward compatible, and classification-calibrated. Comprehensive experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate that our approaches outperform state-of-the-art baselines. Code available at: https://github.com/cswjl/unbiased-alignment.