Human Preference Modeling

Style transfer lacks a reliable evaluation standard: ground truth is inherently ill-defined, and existing automatic metrics often fail to reflect human preference. This paper introduces ASTRA (Assessment of Style TRansfer Algorithms), an approach for automatic evaluation of style transfer algorithms; it contains two components, ASTRA-Data and ASTRA-Score. ASTRA-Data consists of a benchmark image set of content and style references, a collection of style transfer results generated on the benchmark set, and user study data capturing human judgements through a two-stage pairwise comparison protocol. From these annotations, we derive ranking-based ground truth for content preservation, style fidelity, and overall preference. Based on ASTRA-Data, we construct ASTRA-Score, a learnt evaluator that predicts preference-aligned scores from content-style-stylization image triplets, enabling automatic and scalable evaluation of new models applied to the benchmark set. Experimental results demonstrate that ASTRA-Score achieves substantially higher correlation with human rankings compared to prior metrics. Overall, ASTRA establishes a robust mechanism for standardised evaluation of style transfer methods.

In this study, we propose a novel rule-based interpretable choice model, Logic-Logit, designed to effectively learn and explain human choices. Choice models have been widely applied across various domains---such as commercial demand forecasting, recommendation systems, and consumer behavior analysis---typically categorized as parametric, nonparametric, or deep network-based. While recent innovations have favored neural network approaches for their computational power, these flexible models often involve large parameter sets and lack interpretability, limiting their effectiveness in contexts where transparency is essential. Previous empirical evidence shows that individuals usually use heuristic decision rules to form their consideration sets, from which they then choose. These rules are often represented as disjunctions of conjunctions (i.e., OR-of-ANDs). These rules-driven, consider-then-choose decision processes enable people to quickly screen numerous alternatives while reducing cognitive and search costs. Motivated by this insight, our approach leverages logic rules to elucidate human choices, providing a fresh perspective on preference modeling. We introduce a unique combination of column generation techniques and the Frank-Wolfe algorithm to facilitate efficient rule extraction for preference modeling---a process recognized as NP-hard. Our empirical evaluation, conducted on both synthetic datasets and real-world data from commercial and healthcare domains, demonstrates that Logic-Logit significantly outperforms baseline models in terms of interpretability and accuracy.

What makes a short story gripping; a news article newsworthy; or a math proof elegant? These constructs resist articulation or verification; their meaning is at least partially tacit. However, modern AI models are improved primarily via articulated constitutions, rubrics and verifiers (i.e. in RLAIF and RLVR); tacit components of preferences are typically understudied. We introduce a large, labeled preference dataset CreativePreferences, containing 2.8M texts labeled by 317M human preference judgments across 7 creative domains, with 42 benchmark tasks. We model these labels with executable programs, rubric banks and densely trained models (V, A and VAT, respectively). We observe robust articulability gaps, VAT-VA; and verifiability gaps, VAT-V; we estimate upper and lower bounds for each gap with a novel measurement approach that discovers articulable and verifiable metrics, identifies spurious variables and estimates the value of undiscovered metrics using capture-recapture. These gaps occur across all domains, even in domains traditionally treated as fully verifiable: correctness-centered domains (i.e. mathematics and software engineering) and claim- and novelty-centric domains (i.e. news, patents, peer review). The size of the gap varies based on domain (e.g. peer review and creative writing have the largest articulability gaps) and widens as more people take part in the judgment, consistent with Collins' collective tacit knowledge. We show two consequences: (1) on human generations, the full model more closely matches human preferences, often in disagreement with articulated criteria, and (2) in an analogy to Goodhart's law, articulating preference shifts it away from the tacit dimension. Articulability and verifiability gaps are consequential; we give recommendations on when tasks can be prompted; how learning mechanisms might improve; and when to leave judgments with humans.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in culturally sensitive settings, where alignment requires representing diverse preferences within populations. Yet existing methods model populations at coarse demographic or community levels and overlook within-group variation. We introduce Demographic Pluralism, an inference-time framework that estimates population-level opinion distributions without opinion-distribution training data or task-specific fine-tuning by generating multiple perspectives within demographically grounded groups. Across four backbones on GlobalOpinionQA and VITAL, it reduces Jensen-Shannon distance by 8.4%-26.4% over Modular Pluralism. Among weighted, equal-weighted, and inverse-weighted aggregation, equal weighting performs best overall; group-level error also increases with group weight, helping explain weighted aggregation's weaker performance.

Flow-matching policies can represent complex robot behaviors but remain susceptible to local errors under distribution shift at deployment. Many reinforcement learning approaches to policy improvement require reward signals that are difficult to specify or obtain in real-world manipulation. We present PreferenceFlow, a framework for improving a pretrained flow policy at test time without environment rewards or updates to the base policy. Human intervention chunks are paired with robot chunks generated from the same initial conditioning state to train a preference model. During infer- ence, we adopt the QGF sampling update, replacing its value gradient with the preference gradient evaluated at an estimated clean action. A gradient-cap loss penalizes excessive gradients on intervention pairs, while a zero-gradient loss discourages guidance near actions from expert demonstrations. On four real-world precision insertion tasks with a Franka robot, Pref- erenceFlow achieves a mean success rate of 90.5%, compared with 69% for the frozen policy. Ablations support the roles of gradient regularization and correctly ordered preference labels in the evaluated settings. These results demonstrate the utility of human interventions as local preference supervision for guiding frozen generative robot policies.

Human speech conveys rich perceptual information, such as emotion and speaker identity, yet most automatic speech quality judges reduce it to a single naturalness score. We study diagnostic speech judges: given two candidates, a diagnostic judge decides which is better, along which perceptual dimensions (e.g., timbre, emotion, timing) they differ, and which audible cues support its decision. Learning such judges is challenging: expert annotation is costly, and simply prompting a frontier audio-language model to produce labels is unreliable: our probing reveals substantial errors and unstable instruction following. We introduce SpeechCritic, which learns a diagnostic judge in a reference-conditioned cross-lingual setting from only about 300 human-labeled comparisons. Rather than replacing the frontier model, SpeechCritic calibrates it with these labels: for each dimension, it selects the acoustic measurements that agree with human judgments, maps them to A/Tie/B probabilities, and passes these to the model as non-binding hints alongside the audio. Compared with the same model labeling without hints, this raises dimension-level agreement with humans by 6.3 points and cuts the mismatch with human Tie rates by 10.4 points. We then train a 7B judge on this supervision and find that different training signals shape different judge behaviors: SFT establishes the task, OPD transfers the teacher's dimension-level strengths and weaknesses, and RL helps most on clear-cut comparisons where human raters agree. Notably, human listeners also find that RL makes rationales cite more specific, localized acoustic cues, although it never directly rewards rationale text. Finally, we show that the pipeline is language-pair agnostic by instantiating it on both English-Japanese and English-Spanish. Together, these results demonstrate a path from limited human preferences to a diagnostic speech judge.

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.

Companion robots face everyday situations in which several feasible behaviors may be appropriate, yet different people prefer different responses. We introduce InterSocialBench, a benchmark of 210 domestic scenarios and 18 high-level behaviors, pairing judgments from 100 human participants with 23,520 responses from seven large language models under 16 personality conditions. Each human annotation preserves a preferred action alongside explicitly appropriate and inappropriate candidates. A structured construction pipeline covers behavioral alternatives, competing situational cues, and relevant history and future tasks. Evaluation distinguishes preferred-choice agreement from explicit rejection, using scenario-grouped splits for trainable predictors. Simple frequency and persona-voting baselines illustrate these objectives. Across the tested prompts, model and human behavior distributions differ, and the diversity gap remains after matching response counts: humans exhibit 4.68 distinct choices per scenario, compared with 2.06--3.46 for the models. Human scenario-level plurality agreement is 51.5%, describing disagreement rather than a universal prediction ceiling. InterSocialBench supports evaluating social behavior selection without replacing individual judgments with a single consensus label.

Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) generation is attracting increasing attention as generative models improve in expressiveness and controllability. Progress, however, is held back by the lack of domain-specific evaluation protocols: current practice relies on metrics designed for natural images, most notably CLIPScore, which was never trained on vector graphics and aligns only partially with human judgment. We introduce \textbf{\ours}, a human-aligned evaluation framework for text-to-SVG generation. Through controlled caption and image perturbations, we first show that CLIP-based scores barely react to the errors SVG generators actually make, such as wrong colors, counts, and spatial relations, and that off-the-shelf Vision-Language Model (VLM) judges, while more sensitive, respond unevenly across error types and SVG styles. We then introduce a human-annotated dataset for \textit{Semantic Alignment}, measuring how faithfully a generated SVG reflects its caption. Building on it, we develop two complementary evaluators: CLIP scorers adapted to vector graphics and then aligned to human preferences, for fast large-scale evaluation, and a VLM judge trained with supervised fine-tuning and reward-shaped reinforcement learning, for more expressive and interpretable assessment. Using both, we benchmark major open-source, commercial, and optimization-based SVG generators on an independent caption set.

Using reinforcement learning to post-train joint video-audio generation models requires a reward signal. Existing methods construct this reward by combining metrics for individual quality dimensions, including audio quality, visual fidelity, and synchronization. However, these metrics evaluate perceptual dimensions separately and fail to capture the overall semantic and temporal coherence among the text prompt, video, and audio that shapes human preferences. Optimizing models against these metrics encourages reward hacking, generating video-audio content that achieves high scores on these metrics yet appears incoherent or unfaithful to human viewers. To address this problem, we first construct a large-scale human-preference dataset VAPref-10K for joint video-audio generation, comprising 9K prompts and 10.3K fine-grained paired comparisons from open-source generation models. We also introduce the VA-Judger-Bench benchmark with both in-domain and out-of-domain model comparisons to evaluate whether reward models truly align with human preferences. We further propose VA-Judger, a chain-of-thought omni-reward model for joint video-audio generation. In particular, VA-Judger first learns from pairs with clear quality gaps to establish structured output and coarse preference discrimination, then distills reliable preference explanations for harder near-quality comparisons via rejection sampling verified against human annotations, and finally performs dimension-wise reinforcement learning that decomposes human feedback into individual quality dimensions for denser reward signals than a single binary preference label. Experiments show that VA-Judger outperforms metric baselines in predicting human preferences on both in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations. Using its human-aligned rewards for post-training audio-video generation model also yields significant improvements in generation quality.

Large language models are being extensively used to simulate individual user behavior, yet faithfully representing a population requires capturing the systematic variation in values, beliefs, and cultural norms that distinguish one group from another. We introduce Population Aligned Language Models (PALMs), a suite of models each aligned to specific populations, covering five countries: USA, India, Brazil, France and Italy. PALMs are created by synthesizing rationales grounded in psychological and cultural constructs and using these as latent supervision during preference tuning for population-specific alignment. Evaluated across four dimensions: personality, values and beliefs, cultural norms, and morality, PALMs consistently outperform baselines, including culture-specialized models, achieving an average of 8.59% relative improvement over the best baseline across all five populations. Notably, construct-grounded rationales outperform both demographic prompting and survey-based fine-tuning, suggesting that grounding preference learning in psychology and culture provides a richer inductive signal than surface-level response distributions. We further demonstrate strong generalization to downstream applications with- out task-specific supervision: outperforming best baselines by 5.19% in personalized reward modeling, 6.34% in population simulation, and showing strong transfer to social reasoning tasks. Datasets and code are available at: https://github.com/limenlp/PALMs.

This paper studies what discriminatively trained reward models (RMs) memorize by measuring counterfactual memorization on two human preference datasets. We show that RMs 1) misallocate memorization to easy, high margin preference pairs, 2) memorize dataset-specific shortcuts (e.g., model identity, user sampling strategy), and 3) overgeneralize simple heuristic correlates of human preference (e.g., length, compliance) when confronted with unseen preference pairs. Overall, our findings indicate that discriminative training of RMs from human preference data results in biased RMs not yet capable of judging response quality in context-dependent scenarios.

Social appropriateness in human-robot interaction (HRI) is not universal: different people can judge the same robot action differently in the same situation. To capture this inter-subject variability, we reformulate socially appropriate action generation as a preference modelling problem inspired by recommender systems, treating annotators as users, contexts/scenes as items, and appropriateness scores over a set of candidate robot actions as targets. We propose StARS, a novel model-agnostic framework that integrates collaborative filtering with learnable scene representations to generate user-specific appropriateness scores over candidate robot actions. StARS is model-agnostic: it can be integrated with various scene encoders and backbones, enabling personalisation without redesigning the underlying model. We evaluate StARS on two socially aware robotics datasets, MannersDB+ and SocNav1, and analyse robustness under sparse preference feedback. Across datasets and backbones, StARS consistently improves performance and agreement with annotators, supporting personalised action selection aligned with user norms. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/Cambridge-AFAR/StARS.git.

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human preferences in research and practical applications, raising concerns about validation, misrepresentation, and exclusion. Co-designing agents with the people they represent is a promising way to address these concerns, but participation may also mask the problems it appears to solve. This paper explores that tension through a primarily qualitative study in which 12 participants co-designed personal preference agents in the domain of household energy, via a background survey, co-design interview, and validation survey. Participants engaged readily and mostly came to see their agents as representing them well. Independent validation, however, revealed mixed human-agent alignment, with agent responses markedly more homogeneous, decisive, and abstract than the human sample. I argue that participation and process transparency can act as an "overtrust engine" that promotes trust while concealing systematic misalignment with potential structural consequences at scale. I develop this as a core mechanism in participatory preference agent design, treating individual alignment not as a fixed state but as an enacted process.

We introduce Rushes, a dataset and benchmark for studying revealed human engagement preferences in interactive narrative environments. Rushes is collected through a game interface where users interact with AI-generated branching narratives and select one choice from a small, explicit candidate set at each decision point. Each interaction logs the full candidate set, the user's choice, and the evolving narrative context, yielding time-ordered trajectories with persistent user-level identifiers. Rushes contains 44,226 decision events from 8,167 unique users across six games, capturing sequential, personalized engagement behavior rather than static judgments. We show that user choices exhibit structured, non-random patterns, quantified by a low choice entropy relative to a uniform baseline. We position Rushes as a diagnostic benchmark for pluralistic alignment and demonstrate a robust Engagement Gap: state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5, fail to outperform simple baselines. While classical Matrix Factorization (SVD) captures measurable personalized signal (37.7%), frontier LLMs (34.23%) struggle to even match the Popularity Baseline (36.4%) on event-level choice prediction. This gap suggests that single, population-level objectives, like those used in modern RLHF, appear insufficient to capture heterogeneous, context-dependent engagement signals. As a result, even highly capable models default to majority preferences rather than adapting to individual trajectories. We release Rushes to support research into pluralistic alignment and sequential decision-making in generative systems. The full code for the platform and dataset will be available here: https://github.com/microsoft/rushes

Large language model (LLM)-based generative agents simulate human behavior through long-horizon decision-making processes that comprise intermediate steps such as planning, memory retrieval, reflection, and action selection. However, fine-grained human annotations of these intermediate steps remain scarce, and existing agents are not grounded in human preferences over such intermediate decisions. To address this gap, we introduce \method, an interactive simulation interface that enables us to collect step-level human preference supervision over agent decision trajectories, leading to a dataset of 57K fine-grained annotations. We conduct step-level preference learning on open-weight language models using supervised finetuning and direct preference optimization on this data, consistently improving simulation fidelity, coordination, and interaction quality, and inducing more socially effective agent behavior. Our results show that step-level human supervision is an effective training signal for improving both local decision quality and long-horizon agent behavior.

Previous work in group recommender systems has demonstrated a sensitivity to the distribution of preferences within a group. Specifically, the selection of the preference aggregation strategy benefits from considering such group configurations. In this paper, we study whether LLMs are able to mimic this sensitivity and to select the ideal aggregation strategy (and corresponding recommendation) according to nuanced human perceptions of fairness, satisfaction, and consensus. We do this by fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on human survey data to serve as real-time judgmental models within the recommendation pipeline. Using a reasoning dataset distilled from DeepSeek-V3.1 and human ground truth assessments, we develop Judgmental Llama and Judgmental OLMo to simulate group assessments. Our pipeline successfully generates multiple recommendation candidates based on social choice-based aggregation strategies and dynamically selects the one that maximizes these predicted human-like evaluations. We further validate these suggestions in a user study (n=284) and find that our methodology achieved the highest scores for satisfaction and group consensus. Furthermore, we find that LLM judgments are most aligned with human perceptions of fairness, satisfaction and consensus when we also consider interaction effects between our LLM-based method and group configuration (e.g., minority or coalition). These findings give further support for dynamically adapting aggregation strategies to specific within-group preference distributions, and highlight the advantage of using LLMs for an adaptation that is aligned with subjective human judgments.

The uncanny valley is a long-standing empirical rule in humanoid robot design: making robots more human-like can reduce, rather than increase, affinity. Yet existing guidelines, such as adopting robot-like appearances, avoiding excessive realism, and reducing cross-modal mismatches, remain difficult to use for algorithmic design because they are not expressed as manipulable variables. Here, we propose a hierarchical Bayesian generative model that operationalizes these guidelines as mathematical design variables. The model represents affinity toward humanoid robots as posterior-weighted negative category-conditional surprise and explains category ambiguity and perceptual mismatch as increases in surprise. It maps uncanny-valley mechanisms onto four variables: deviation from the predicted robot-category mean, inconsistency in human likeness across modalities, prediction uncertainty, and observational uncertainty. Simulations showed that category ambiguity and appearance--motion mismatch can produce affinity reductions, and that uncertainty reshapes the valley. In a human-subject experiment with robot--human morphing images, we manipulated prediction uncertainty using blurred prior robot stimuli and observational uncertainty using blurred evaluation stimuli. Increased observational uncertainty attenuated the decrease in familiarity ratings at intermediate human likeness, whereas low prediction uncertainty increased ratings for robot-like appearances. This framework turns empirical uncanny-valley heuristics into a computational basis for algorithmically evaluating and optimizing humanoid robot appearance and behavior.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse areas of human activity-ranging from everyday tasks to safety-critical applications-aims to enhance decision-making effectiveness with minimal human feedback. Concurrently, it seeks to align decisions with human expectations, preferences, and needs while mitigating risks associated with AI non-determinism. However, humans frequently over- or under-rely on AI recommendations, and current AI systems remain poorly calibrated to human expectations. To address these challenges, we introduce a human-AI collaborative decision-making framework designed to augment human capabilities and align AI agents with human preferences and expectations. Specifically, this paper (a) formulates the collaborative decision-making task as a stochastic game between an AI agent and a human player, and (b) proposes the Human-Centric Reflective Architecture (HCRA), which integrates human-calibrated models with reinforcement learning agents that leverage linguistic feedback in an iterative, reflective process. Evaluation results demonstrate that HCRA enhances decision-making effectiveness and delivers high-quality recommendations.

Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision rules according to multiple authoritative priorities about how the rule should behave. We provide a formal model of such pluralistic preferences over decision rules, which then lets us identify two distinct failures of forced local pairwise comparison data. First, priorities such as proportionality, egalitarianism, and equal treatment are inherently global: what they imply in one case can depend on what happens elsewhere, so local comparisons may fail to capture them. Second, even when priorities are representable locally, tension between strongly-held priorities can generate internal conflict, producing potentially costly behavioral distortions when comparisons are forced. We then use our model to investigate the alternative -- allowing people to report indecision -- and our findings suggest that doing so can considerably reduce the number of queries needed to learn preferences accurately. We conclude by describing how our model points toward preference-learning methods that elicit these priorities directly, yielding more faithful and interpretable accounts of what people value.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents that make consumption decisions on behalf of users. This shift raises fundamental questions for consumer theory, which has traditionally modeled humans as the primary decision-makers. In this paper, we introduce LLM Consumer Behavior Theory, a new field of study concerned with analyzing consumer behavior in agentic markets. Drawing on classical and behavioral economics alongside recent advances in Natural Language Processing, we formalize how human preferences are reflected and acted upon by LLM-based agents, and how agent-level decisions aggregate into market demand. We unify previously fragmented literature on LLM decision-making, human behavior simulation, and preference elicitation under a common economic lens, highlighting where assumptions, such as rationality and heterogeneity, may fail in agentic markets. Rather than providing empirical validation, this paper outlines the scope of LLM consumer behavior and identifies open research questions related to alignment, preference representation, and market dynamics.

City landscapes viewed through home windows influence quality of life, yet perceptions of actual window views at the urban scale remain understudied. This study presents an approach for large-scale mapping of perceptions using 12,334 window view images (WVIs) collected from actual residential properties listed on real estate platforms in Wuhan, China, representing a rarely explored form of urban view imagery that offers advantages over the rendered or simulated window views commonly examined in previous studies. Through a non-immersive virtual reality platform, we collected 27,477 pairwise comparisons across six perceptual dimensions (e.g. preference) from 304 participants based on 499 WVIs. A hybrid neural network model was trained to predict human perceptions of all crowdsourced WVIs and map their spatial distribution. Results reveal significant spatial autocorrelation with distinct hot and cold spots across the whole city. Floor level strongly influences human perceptions: while higher floors offer more preferred and extensive window views, lower-floor windows provide residents with quiet and vivid views. An inference model further shows that window view composition matters considerably: high ratios of sky, trees, and low-rise buildings enhance people's preferences and perceptions of vividness, whereas high ratios of high-rise buildings increase perceptions of monotony and oppression. Importantly, these effects are non-linear: the excessive presence of certain elements can alter their impact on human perception. This work advances urban-scale understanding of residents' visual experiences and offers a transferable, human-centric method to inform urban planning and design aimed at improving the visual quality of window views.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation. When do humans adopt AI suggestions, and what are the implications for individual voice? This study examines these questions through a gamified writing exercise where 74 participants (214 responses) replied to prompts while AI-generated word suggestions were available as they wrote. The game simulates a dystopian future in which an AI is attempting to learn from what remains of human individuality, and disincentivizes AI-like writing. In doing so, it attempts to create conditions that reveal authentic user preferences rather than default behaviors, such as accepting a readily available AI-generated suggestion. Note that this is a deliberate inversion of the "helpful assistant" design pattern; the system is explicitly forbidding you from accepting AI suggestions. We analyze user behavior patterns across different task types, user behaviors, and response characteristics to understand the factors influencing human-AI interaction in creative tasks. The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance. It also explores how these choices relate to response patterns, task characteristics, and user behavior. This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.

Standard RLHF pipelines often reduce heterogeneous human judgments into a single scalar reward target. We argue that this reduction can mis-measure alignment in structurally plural societies, where disagreement may reflect culturally, historically, linguistically, regionally, or normatively grounded interpretations rather than annotation noise. We call this failure Preference-Validity Compression, the collapse of multiple plural-valid response options into a single optimization target. Using Malaysia as a diagnostic setting, we analyze RLHF-style feedback aggregation through preference events linking prompts, responses, and acceptability judgments across interpretive frames. Across 321 preference events from 20 participants and 107 trio-annotated prompts, 79% of prompts contain more than one majority-supported response that single-winner aggregation would discard, and apparent dominance gaps between top responses diminish when all majority-supported options are considered. Participants frequently select multiple acceptable responses, and discarded responses demonstrably reflect coherent local, practical, or cultural frames. These findings show that majority aggregation in this corpus measures argmax acceptability rather than plural alignment. We treat this as a measurement-validity issue and argue that future alignment methods should satisfy Validity-Preserving Consistency, remaining stable across plural-valid interpretive frames rather than collapsing them into a single reward target.

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultural norms, with behavior shifted more by country context (7.8%) than age (1%) and gender (0.7%) and shifting non-uniformly after instruction tuning. Furthermore, our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts, showing within-culture pluralism. Finally, human-LLM alignment experiments show that models can match majority choices, but fail to capture response distributions and uncertainty (with best correlations reaching only 0.24). Together, these findings motivate alignment evaluations that go beyond majority to capture cultural pluralism and disagreement in social judgment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are often fine-tuned through Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) to align with people's preferences and values. However, this method has known limitations: it aggregates conflicting preferences, often relies on unrepresentative samples, and uses only binary comparisons. Analysing 1,500 open-ended responses from the PRISM dataset across 75 countries, we examine what people actually want from AI systems and reveal concrete failures of current methods. We find that different people want different things: most values are requested by fewer than a quarter of respondents, with truthfulness the sole exception at 49%. Furthermore, the same words hide divergent meanings: when people describe what they mean by "truthfulness", they reveal distinct, potentially incompatible, epistemological bases, as some ask for sourced claims, some for expert opinions, and some even ask for unpopular views. Certain capabilities, namely how human-like a model behaves, and some features, like AI guardrails, are outright controversial, with some desiring them and others rejecting them. We additionally find that people often use contextual distinctions (what AI should do "by default" versus "if requested") that binary comparisons cannot capture. These findings expose fundamental problems in current alignment practices. When 49% request truthfulness but define it differently, this is unlikely to be captured by a single reward model. The persistence of high hallucination rates in well-funded models, despite users' clear demands for accuracy, suggests that current methods fail to identify actual preferences. This paper sheds light on the situated, contested, imperfect signals that are currently being flattened into universal preference models, a practice others have characterised as epistemic violence.

Diffusion Models (DM) have revolutionized text-driven generation by enabling the synthesis of high-quality, photorealistic visual content from user prompts. Whereas prior advances in visual generation such as VAEs and GANs were primarily evaluated on perceptual or visual similarity metrics such as FID PSNR, DM advances have fostered the development of more advanced Human Preference Metrics (HPM) that model and quantify human judgment as scalar values. However, DMs synthesize content using an inherently stochastic process where random noise seeds generation. The initial random noise directly affects the quality of generated outputs, both qualitatively and quantitatively. This influence is pronounced in smaller models for local deployment scenarios. Given this phenomenon, we first investigate to what extent we can predict scalar HPM scores prior to committing compute resources for generation. Further, we then investigate to what extent we can leverage such prediction to improve the quality of generated images, and also study which HPMs are best suited for this task. Our investigation reveals that not only is this possible, but that it is feasible to achieve negligible hardware overhead.

Aligning AI systems with diverse human values requires value specifications grounded in concrete examples, but generating such examples without extensive human supervision remains an open challenge. We investigate what makes these examples effective, using Internal Coherence Maximization (ICM) -- which infers labels by maximizing their mutual predictability -- to generate persona-specific examples that steer a model toward a target group's values, without human supervision. Across four benchmarks spanning classification, preference, and open-ended generation, ICM-inferred in-context examples match the performance of gold labels. Crucially, coherence matters beyond individual label accuracy: with accuracy held constant, more coherent examples generalize substantially better than incoherent ones. For personas underrepresented in pretraining data, targeted human feedback on the questions where the model is least certain about a persona's values yields better generalization than the same number of labels on arbitrary questions. These results identify coherence as a key design principle for scalable value specification, leveraging the diverse human perspectives already encoded in pretrained language models.

Current approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) aggregate diverse human preferences into a single reward signal, effectively optimizing for a hypothetical ``average user'' who represents no real person particularly well. This position paper argues that LLMs should learn personalized, individual preferences rather than aggregated ones. We show that aggregation masks critical information about preference diversity, individual values, and contextual dependencies, which is a limitation both theoretically grounded in social choice theory and empirically evident across demographic groups. We analyze the rich structure that human preferences encode, survey technical approaches to personalization, and systematically address counterarguments on scalability, shared standards, and manipulation risk. While personalization introduces genuine safety challenges including filter bubbles, value lock-in, and psychological manipulation, we argue these are manageable through bounded personalization frameworks that preserve universal safety constraints while accommodating legitimate individual variation. We conclude with a concrete research and policy agenda for developing preference-aware models that respect both individual autonomy and collective safety.