A Minimal Model of Bounded Trade-Off Screening in Multi-Attribute Choice

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.

Learning from human feedback has become a central paradigm for training modern AI systems, where models of human utility are used as reward models in policy learning. Existing methods typically assume a \emph{universal utility} function shared across a population and treat disagreement between annotators as stochastic variation. While suitable for objective tasks, this assumption breaks down in subjective domains where preferences vary systematically across individuals. We study the problem of subjective preference learning, in which observed choices arise from heterogeneous but internally consistent utility functions. Drawing upon rational choice theory, RCT \parencite{tversky1981framing}, we introduce \emph{individuated utility} functions conditioned on both the individual and their decision context, and propose a novel multi-stage architecture for estimating them from multi-modal data. We evaluate our framework on a newly collected dataset of more than $575{,}000$ pairwise aesthetic judgments from $2{,}398$ participants comparing automotive wheel designs. Our experiments show that individuated utility models substantially outperform universal utility models including foundation model baselines. Our results demonstrate that disagreement reflects meaningful preference heterogeneity rather than annotation noise. More broadly, our findings highlight the importance of collecting annotator attributes and learning individuated utility functions, enabling reward models that explicitly account for whose preferences they represent and faithfully capture human decision diversity.

Many decision-support settings require systems that adapt to individual users, but evaluation data for this problem remain limited. Existing benchmarks for user understanding often rely on simulated users or model-generated behavior, even though recent work cautions that model-based simulations can diverge systematically from human behavior. We introduce \textsc{BehaviorBench}, a benchmark for evaluating personalized decision modeling from real-world behavioral traces. \textsc{BehaviorBench} reconstructs wallet-level decision histories from observed public prediction-market and on-chain records, and organizes them into two complementary task layers: \emph{Belief prediction}, which predicts a user's final revealed stance and confidence in a market, and \emph{Trade prediction}, which predicts the direction and amount of individual transactions. Across 2,000 evaluation wallets, the benchmark contains 141,445 Belief instances and 1,485,972 Trade instances, with disjoint support pools for retrieval-based evaluation. We evaluate frontier and open-weight generative models under four history interfaces: no personalization, direct recent history, generated user profiles, and retrieved support-wallet evidence. Personalization improves Belief prediction more consistently than Trade prediction, model rankings change across task layers and metrics, and different history interfaces expose different failure modes. \textsc{BehaviorBench} provides an evaluation setting for studying whether personalized methods can use real-world behavioral evidence rather than simulated users alone.