Human Preference Modeling

While color harmony has long been studied in art and design, a clear consensus remains elusive, as most models are grounded in qualitative insights or limited datasets. In this work, we present a quantitative, data-driven study of color pairing preferences using controlled hue-based palettes in the HSL color space. Participants evaluated combinations of thirteen distinct hues, enabling us to construct a preference matrix and define a combinability index for each color. Our results reveal that preferences are highly hue dependent, thereby challenging classical color harmony theories. Yet, when averaged over hues, statistically meaningful patterns of aesthetic preference emerge, with certain hue separations perceived as more harmonious. Strikingly, these patterns align with hue distributions found in natural landscapes, pointing to a statistical correspondence between human color preferences and the structure of color in nature. Finally, we analyze our color-pairing score matrix through principal component analysis, which uncovers two complementary hue groups whose interplay underlies the global structure of color-pairing preferences. Together, these findings offer a quantitative framework for studying color harmony and its potential perceptual and ecological underpinnings.

Normative theories allow one to elicit key parts of a ML algorithm from first principles, which is crucial at a time of championed scrutiny for ML work. Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) cleverly bypasses reward modeling by making an explicit link with a specific normative model of human choice. Our paper elevates this connection to the full generality of DPO's normative framework. Getting there requires reworking human choice theory's textbook path for a better RLHF/ML fit. It elevates the connection to a remarkably broad viewpoint on preference optimization, considering the current panorama of DPO follow-ups. It also unveils unexpected riches for ML, chief among which the support for non-convex losses, the fact that any compliant ML analytical choice can be embedded with any human choice model, and a normative framework's umbrella wide enough to safeguard DPO's extensions (margins, length correction, ...). A toy experiment ``far away'' from the DPO crowd is given.

A growing trend involves integrating human knowledge into learning frameworks, leveraging subtle human feedback to refine AI models. While these approaches have shown promising results in practice, the theoretical understanding of when and why such approaches are effective remains limited. This work takes steps toward developing a theoretical framework for analyzing the conditions under which human comparisons can enhance the traditional supervised learning process. Specifically, this paper studies the effective use of noisy-labeled data and human comparison data to address challenges arising from noisy environment and high-dimensional models. We propose a two-stage "Supervised Learning+Learning from Human Feedback" (SL+LHF) framework that connects machine learning with human feedback through a probabilistic bisection approach. The two-stage framework first learns low-dimensional representations from noisy-labeled data via an SL procedure and then uses human comparisons to improve the model alignment. To examine the efficacy of the alignment phase, we introduce a concept, termed the "label-noise-to-comparison-accuracy" (LNCA) ratio. This paper identifies from a theoretical perspective the conditions under which the "SL+LHF" framework outperforms the pure SL approach; we then leverage this LNCA ratio to highlight the advantage of incorporating human evaluators in reducing sample complexity. We validate the framework on a real high-dimensional crowdfunding-prediction task: under a fixed query budget, trading labels for comparisons improves accuracy precisely when labels are scarce, and the findings hold when the evaluator is replaced by real large language models. A study conducted via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) further validates the model primitives.

Kahneman & Tversky's $\textit{prospect theory}$ tells us that humans perceive random variables in a biased but well-defined manner (1992); for example, humans are famously loss-averse. We show that objectives for aligning LLMs with human feedback implicitly incorporate many of these biases -- the success of these objectives (e.g., DPO) over cross-entropy minimization can partly be ascribed to them belonging to a family of loss functions that we call $\textit{human-aware losses}$ (HALOs). However, the utility functions these methods attribute to humans still differ from those in the prospect theory literature. Using a Kahneman-Tversky model of human utility, we propose a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, as current methods do. We call this approach KTO, and it matches or exceeds the performance of preference-based methods at scales from 1B to 30B, despite only learning from a binary signal of whether an output is desirable. More broadly, our work suggests that there is no one HALO that is universally superior; the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.