Finding Common Ground in a Sea of Alternatives

Many high-stakes AI deployments proceed only if every stakeholder deems the system acceptable relative to their own minimum standard. With randomization over a finite menu of options, this becomes a feasibility question: does there exist a lottery over options that clears all stakeholders' acceptability bars? We study a query model where the algorithm proposes lotteries and receives only binary accept/reject feedback. We give deterministic and randomized algorithms that either find a unanimously acceptable lottery or certify infeasibility; adaptivity can avoid eliciting many stakeholders' constraints, and randomization further reduces the expected elicitation cost relative to full elicitation. We complement these upper bounds with worst-case lower bounds (in particular, linear dependence on the number of stakeholders and logarithmic dependence on precision are unavoidable). Finally, we develop learning-augmented algorithms that exploit natural forms of advice (e.g., likely binding stakeholders or a promising lottery), improving query complexity when predictions are accurate while preserving worst-case guarantees.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel academically but struggle with social intelligence tasks, such as creating good compromises. In this paper, we present methods for generating empathically neutral compromises between two opposing viewpoints. We first compared four different prompt engineering methods using Claude 3 Opus and a dataset of 2,400 contrasting views on shared places. A subset of the gen erated compromises was evaluated for acceptability in a 50-participant study. We found that the best method for generating compromises between two views used external empathic similarity between a compromise and each viewpoint as iterative feedback, outperforming stan dard Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning. The results indicate that the use of empathic neutrality improves the acceptability of compromises. The dataset of generated compromises was then used to train two smaller foundation models via margin-based alignment of human preferences, improving efficiency and removing the need for empathy estimation during inference.

Sampling from distributions conditioned on desired semantic properties is an emerging challenge in modern generative modeling. Metropolis-Hastings (MH) provides a principled route to conditional sampling, but requires access to exact pointwise target-density evaluations, which are not available in generative settings. Meanwhile, pairwise comparisons by humans or model "judge" are highly accessible and have proved valuable across diverse applications. We introduce Pref-MH, a general exact MH sampler for judge-induced conditional distributions using only stochastic binary pairwise comparisons. Our key observation is that the MH unnormalized density ratio matches the preference odds of the Bradley-Terry (BT) choice model. The central challenge is that while MH requires precise ratio computation, BT judges provide only sampled binary feedback. To this end, we develop a valid accept/reject rule whose resulting Markov chain provably converges to the target distribution. We further show that, for a fixed proposal kernel and budget, Pref-MH is optimal in the Peskun-Tierney sense among this class of exact reversible acceptance rules. Experiments on text generation and molecular design with LLM judges, as well as image generation with VLM judges, demonstrate that Pref-MH provides a practical and flexible approach to conditional sampling when comparative feedback is relatively easy to obtain.