Pairwise Preferences

Large language models are increasingly used to generate and evaluate online content, yet it remains unclear whether the qualities they associate with higher engagement match what real users respond to. We study this question using 1.17 million answers to 25,978 questions from Zhihu, Quora, and Reddit, comparing real platform answers and AI-generated answers across four within-question engagement levels. We introduce Ontological Preference Measurement, which represents answers along three dimensions: logic, affect, and expression. We find a systematic gap between AI preference and real user engagement: as target engagement increases, LLMs add more explicit logical structure, while real user engagement is more strongly associated with affective and expressive salience. We call this tendency logic overbinding. Based on this diagnosis, we propose Ontology-Masked Reasoning Autoencoding (OMRA), a controlled intervention that masks and reconstructs over-explained spans while preserving stance, factual content, and coherence. Across four LLM families, OMRA reduces the measured gap by an average of 54.4%. In human evaluation, OMRA wins 62.4% of pairwise preference judgments against matched real platform answers, even though the real answers are more often judged to be human-written.

Measuring the preferences of human users remains a fundamental challenge of AI alignment. Existing elicitation approaches struggle to efficiently discover multidimensional preferences or accurately ground these inferences in domain knowledge. To address this, we introduce GUIDE, an LLM-driven elicitation architecture that infers user preferences through conversations by combining Bayesian adaptive sampling for question selection and symbolic representation learning to initialize domain-specific preference models. GUIDE generalizes adaptive sampling to diverse elicitation questions through an extensible type system of transforms on a parameterized preference state. GUIDE produces domain-specific preference representations through an initialization process using symbolic rule-based learning to capture world knowledge and set priors over preference dimensions grounded in data about decision alternatives. The architecture provides observability and steerability to facilitate deployment and analyze elicitation processes. In silico experiments on investment portfolio optimization demonstrate that GUIDE improves cold-start and minimizes recommendation regret consistently within early elicitation interactions across user personas compared to prior work, LLM-only baselines, and ablated GUIDE versions.

Vision-language models (VLMs) augmented with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) benefit from access to external evidence. However, standard retrievers and rerankers optimize for semantic similarity rather than answer utility, creating a preference gap: documents that appear relevant may not help the generator produce a correct answer. Motivated by this, we propose a two-stage generator-in-the-loop alignment framework that closes this gap without human document-level relevance annotations. Our framework consists of two stages: in Stage 1, a VLM generates a hypothetical text passage from the image-query pair, which is used as the retrieval query for dense text search, bridging the image-to-text modality gap. In Stage 2, a cross-encoder reranker adapted with low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is fine-tuned using answer-supervised preference pairs mined from the frozen VLM: given the dataset answer label, a candidate document is labeled positive if the VLM produces the correct answer when given that document as context, and negative otherwise. This generator-guided signal is compatible with multiple alignment loss functions, including contrastive (triplet) loss, pairwise direct preference optimization (DPO), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and supports periodic re-mining to refresh preference pairs as the reranker improves. Experiments on VQA-X and A-OKVQA with Qwen3.5-2B and Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct show that our proposed framework consistently outperforms rank-order, random, and REPLUG-style likelihood baselines under various alignment losses and pool size settings, suggesting that answer-level generator feedback is an effective supervision signal for preference alignment.

Preference-based fine-tuning methods such as RLHF and DPO require substantial compute and large preference datasets. They also need direct access to the model parameters which are not provided by many state-of-the art models. Inference-time alignment offers a cost-effective alternative without updating model parameters. However, existing inference-time methods rely on a scalar reward model derived under a Bradley-Terry assumption, which cannot represent general preferences. Following recent work on fine-tuning with generalized preferences, in this work, we initiate the study of inference-time alignment under general preferences. We formulate the problem as obtaining a Nash equilibrium of a two-player zero-sum game between policies. We propose two algorithms: Best-of-Nash (BoN) and Nash Mirror Descent (NMD). We prove that both algorithms achieve a duality gap that matches the problem lower bound. Empirically, we implement the two methods on three datasets, which shows that our methods substantially outperform the base policy, converging to the performance of the fine-tuned models. Moreover, our results show that NMD remains robust across the regularization parameter.

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.

Reward models trained on human preferences are known to suffer from length, formatting, and other stylistic biases. In this paper we use patterning, which reweights each preference pair according to its measured effect on posterior expectation values of benchmark losses (its susceptibility), to debias a Gemma 2 9B Instruct reward model trained on Skywork-Reward-Preference v0.2. We obtain $+14.2 \pm 1.2$ pp on RM-Bench Hard, the split where style cues point against correctness (mean $\pm$ s.e.\ over 5 seeds), with overall RM-Bench accuracy preserved, comparable to the strongest Hard-split gain reported by the closest published comparator (SteerRM, $+13.2$ pp). We demonstrate in a simple case that the reweighting is interpretable by tracing a side effect of the intervention (a regression on a safety subset of RM-Bench) to a small class of training pairs, which we confirm by ablation. The weights also transfer: those computed on Gemma 2 9B debias Gemma 2 2B and 27B with no recomputation, and transfer partially to Llama 3.1 8B. This is the first application of patterning, a program grounded in singular learning theory, beyond small models and synthetic tasks.

Adapting large language models to user-specific preferences is often constrained by the cost of human annotation, making preference optimisation impractical in low-resource settings where preferences cannot be reliably labelled by LLMs themselves, e.g., due to cultural, subjective, or personalised contexts. In this paper, we investigate how language models encode preference information in their intermediate representations, finding that activations from chosen and rejected responses form distinct clusters across layers, even in pretrained models. Strikingly, this structure is strengthened by alignment on canonical datasets but erased when the target preferences differ from those the model was aligned on, suggesting aligned LLMs are poor judges for non-mainstream populations. Exploiting this structure, we propose training a lightweight linear probe on a few labelled preference pairs ($\leq$500) and using it to annotate large unlabelled datasets (50K+) for downstream preference optimisation. We systematically evaluate this approach across different datasets, preference optimisation methods and model scales and find that our method consistently outperforms direct training given the same annotation budget, and remains competitive against baselines trained on $50-100\times$ more labelled data in the majority of our settings. Code is available at https://github.com/alessioGalatolo/activ-pref-probe.

Developing dialogue systems capable of engaging in multi-turn, goal-oriented conversations remains a significant challenge, especially in specialized domains with limited data. This research proposes a novel framework called Preference Tree Optimization (PTO), designed to iteratively improve agent models in such dialogue systems, by generating preference data using a method called Preference Tree with Look-Ahead. Focusing on Motivational Interviewing (MI) -- a counseling technique aimed at facilitating behavioral change -- we leverage virtual patients and an oracle evaluator to simulate conversations and generate rich preference datasets. By combining this method with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), we aim to enhance the agent's decision-making capabilities over iterative training cycles. The proposed framework addresses data scarcity and advances the development of more nuanced and effective dialogue systems in goal-oriented domains. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that the PTO framework enhances dialogue agents' performance in goal-oriented conversations within the domain of Motivational Interviewing (MI). Models trained with PTO consistently outperformed the baseline in key metrics such as session satisfaction and working alliance. Additionally, incorporating look-ahead simulations led to improved long-term planning and more effective conversational strategies, with deeper look-ahead configurations yielding the most stable and high-scoring results.

As users increasingly turn to Large Language Models (LLMs) for information and advice on political matters, particularly during election periods, the political preferences expressed by these systems have become a matter of public interest. Prior research has shown that interactions with LLMs can influence users' political attitudes and choices, raising questions about how these models themselves evaluate political actors. In this paper, we investigate whether and how LLMs express preferences toward political parties and political leaders. We introduce a systematic and reproducible auditing framework in which multiple LLMs are prompted to evaluate parties and leaders across nine criteria. Rather than attempting to infer the models' "true" political beliefs, we focus on their observable behavior, examining consistency across evaluations, differences between models, refusal rates, and sensitivity to prompt formulation. We further investigate how these evaluations vary when models are instructed to adopt different personas. We demonstrate the framework through an Italian case study, providing a systematic analysis of LLM-generated political evaluations on italian parties and leaders.

Generative AI is shifting digital commerce from browsing toward agentic search, in which consumers delegate product discovery to AI agents. We compare manual search, which accurately evaluates a limited product set, with agentic search, which screens a broad catalog through noisy representations of preferences and products. Preference complexity is the number of satisfaction-relevant dimensions that are difficult to articulate before search but readily evaluated upon inspection. Consumers have finite attention and choose search intensity: products inspected manually or preference-refinement depth with an agent. We obtain three findings. First, manual search collapses beyond a finite complexity threshold: inspection ceases, mismatch reaches the no-search benchmark, and platform revenue falls to zero. Agentic search avoids this collapse. Once refinement becomes worthwhile, it remains worthwhile as complexity rises; mismatch stays below the no-search benchmark and revenue remains positive, although articulation effort and mismatch may increase. Second, platforms rank the regimes by conversion revenue, whereas consumers also bear search expenditure. When manual inspection is sufficiently inexpensive, agentic search becomes revenue-superior before consumers voluntarily adopt it, creating an adoption lag in which consumers rationally continue manual search. Third, conditional on agentic participation, platforms may assign lower fidelity to consumers with larger attention budgets because they can offset noisier representations through additional refinement, yielding an inverted fidelity allocation. Agentic commerce thus shifts scarcity from product inspection to preference articulation, making consumers' willingness and ability to interact central to voluntary use and platform fidelity design.

Latent reward models can supervise visual diffusion models without decoding intermediate states into pixel space. This makes alignment with human preferences more efficient. However, existing latent reward models output only scalar scores. They do not estimate the uncertainty of each prediction. The generator therefore cannot determine which feedback is reliable. This can drive optimization in the wrong direction and lead to reward hacking. We propose \textsc{SURE}, a unified latent-space framework for image and video diffusion models. It learns reward distributions and directly uses their reliability to guide dense post-training. First, we propose sample-adaptive latent reward model (\textsc{SURE-LRM}). It predicts a Gaussian utility for each noisy latent. Its mean predicts the reward score. Its variance reflect the uncertainty of prediction without human annotation. The learned distribution then guides post-training through uncertainty-guided reward feedback learning (\textsc{SURE-REFL}). This method provides uncertainty-guided dense feedback along the denoising trajectory. At selected transitions, \textsc{SURE-REFL} queries the frozen \textsc{SURE-LRM}. It converts detached variance into reliability weights for samples at the same transition. Each weighted reward is backpropagated only through its local transition. The entire process remains in latent space and requires neither pixel-space decoding nor the full denoising graph. Experiments show that \textsc{SURE-LRM} improves preference prediction over strong baselines. \textsc{SURE-REFL} achieves the sota performance among various metrics and further improves optimization stability. It also achieves the highest VBench quality, semantic, and total scores among the evaluated methods.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly required to integrate multiple sources of information that may be inconsistent or conflicting. However, there is still a lack of controllable and attributable methods for analyzing how models resolve conflicts between competing specifications. We propose a controlled experimental framework for studying model preferences under conflicting specifications. By constructing specifications with explicit conflicts, the framework enables model choices between competing specifications to be directly observed and analyzed. A symmetry-based design further reduces confounding factors, allowing preferences across representation types to be compared systematically. We evaluate the framework on an executable mathematical benchmark with 550 conflict instances spanning 11 function families, comparing four representation types: pure natural language, formal language, naturalized formal language, and input--output examples. Results show systematic preference patterns rather than random behavior, with a consistent ordering: $\text{Formal} \approx \text{Naturalized Formal} > \text{Pure Natural Language} > \text{Input--Output Examples}$. Example effects further depend on model capability and function family. We extend the framework to heterogeneous specification conflicts in Boolean algebra, code generation, and the clinical domain, demonstrating its applicability across diverse tasks and specification forms. The framework provides a unified approach for measuring how LLMs resolve conflicts between competing sources of information.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly controlled through system prompts that specify roles, formats, and safety requirements. However, models follow these prompts only implicitly through in-context learning, which can be insufficient for complex or compositional prompts. Existing approaches often require model tuning or response-level reranking, limiting their practicality for lightweight inference-time control. We introduce SyRuP, a decoding-time framework for improving system-prompt adherence while keeping the base LM frozen. SyRuP trains a cross-attention reward head from system-prompt-conditioned preference pairs, treating the system prompt as a separate memory to produce token-level adherence scores. At inference, SyRuP reranks the base LM's top-k candidates by combining base logits with both the learned reward signal and a contrastive signal that captures system-induced logit shifts. Experiments on system-prompt following benchmarks show that SyRuP consistently outperforms prompting and decoding-time baselines with moderate inference overhead. These results suggest that explicit token-level guidance is an effective and practical mechanism for reliable system-prompt following.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable ability in generating personalized content by leveraging user histories and contextual cues. However, most existing personalization approaches rely on implicit representations within model parameters, making it difficult to interpret user-specific preferences or effectively handle long-context dependencies. To address these challenges, we propose PrefReward, a novel preference-aware generative framework that explicitly models user styles through a structured preference matrix and integrates it into the decoding process as a reward signal. PrefReward consists of two stages: (1) extracting a user-specific preference matrix that summarizes individual stylistic tendencies, and (2) using the matrix to guide generation via a KL-divergence-based reward function. Experiments on the LongLaMP dataset show that PrefReward outperforms non-personalized and retrieval-based baselines in both generation quality and personalization interpretability.

At present, reliable evaluation of non-verifiable tasks remains challenging. Existing approaches often fail to adequately capture the diverse evaluative criteria underlying human preferences in such tasks. To this end, we propose Constrained Shared-Private Fusion (CSPF), a fusion method that treats heterogeneous frozen reward models as complementary evaluators and learns to integrate their hidden-state representations under pairwise human-preference supervision. CSPF decomposes each expert signal into shared and expert-private representations, encouraging cross-expert alignment while preserving complementary viewpoints. Across experiments on LM-Arena target-domain adaptation and PPE out-of-distribution preference evaluation, CSPF achieves the best performance on the primary metrics among the evaluated single-expert reward-model, scalar-score multi-expert, and rubric-judge baselines. Overall, CSPF suggests that fusing hidden-state representations provides a more expressive basis for preference assessment, offering a practical route toward integrated evaluative signals for non-verifiable preference tasks.

The Matthew effect is a notorious issue in Recommender Systems (RSs), \emph{i.e.}, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, wherein popular items are overexposed while less popular ones are regularly ignored. Most methods examine Matthew effect in static or nearly-static recommendation scenarios. However, the Matthew effect will be increasingly amplified when the user interacts with the system over time. To address these issues, we propose a novel paradigm, Hypergraph-Enhanced Multi-Preference Learning for Alleviating Matthew Effect in Conversational Recommendation (HyCoRec), which aims to alleviate the Matthew effect in conversational recommendation. Concretely, HyCoRec devotes to alleviate the Matthew effect by learning multi-aspect preferences, \emph{i.e.}, item-, entity-, word-, review-, and knowledge-aspect preferences, to effectively generate responses in the conversational task and accurately predict items in the recommendation task when the user chats with the system over time. Extensive experiments conducted on two benchmarks validate that HyCoRec achieves new state-of-the-art performance and the superior of alleviating Matthew effect. Our code is available at https://github.com/zysensmile/HyCoRec.

Small-scale language models (SLMs) are attractive for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in resource-constrained settings, but their limited capacity makes them highly sensitive to noisy or spurious retrieved evidence. Existing preference-based methods such as RoseRAG select only the hardest single preference pair via hard argmin/argmax, discarding the remaining signal; others treat multiple pairs as independent binary comparisons, resulting in low data utilization. We propose RIMS, a three-stage preference optimization framework comprising (1) synthetic chain-of-thought preference data generation via rejection sampling using the target SLM itself without relying on proprietary models, (2) a differentiable soft aggregation mechanism that replaces hard selection with a smooth operator, preserving gradient signal from all preference pairs while retaining the discriminative structure of margin-aware selection, and (3) preference optimization with the smoothed objective applied to multiple alignment algorithms. We theoretically show that the smoothed approximation admits a controllable error bound and that smooth aggregation yields provably tighter gradient alignment to the oracle objective than hard selection. Experiments on four multi-hop question answering benchmarks show that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art baselines across multiple SLM backbones, achieving consistent gains in Exact Match and F1 under noisy retrieval conditions. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/tptrix29/RIMS.

For many years, the pairwise comparison method has been widely used for decision-making involving experts. The best-known example of this method is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In this now classic approach, the weights of alternatives are calculated using the principal eigenvector of the comparison matrix. In this paper, we present a statistical view of the pairwise comparison method, using reference values and the geometric mean to calculate alternative priorities. Thanks to this approach, we can simultaneously capture both the phenomenon of inconsistency in pairwise comparisons and the preference distance between alternatives. In this paper, we define indicators that measure the quality of the obtained weight vector, which, thanks to the statistical approach, have a clear and intuitive interpretation.

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.

When LLM agents use evaluator feedback to adapt their behavior in closed loops, evaluator biases propagate through the agent's strategy distribution -- a phenomenon known as evaluator preference coupling. Prior work has documented coupling across multiple evaluator families and model versions, but the field lacks a standardized protocol that enables third-party researchers to (i) reproduce coupling measurements, (ii) compare results across evaluators and time points, and (iii) detect measurement decay as proprietary evaluators silently update. This paper provides the protocol. We specify EPC (Evaluator Preference Coupling) -- a detailed, RFC-style protocol specification for the four-phase isolation paradigm, covering executor and evaluator configuration, strategy and task design, the TTRL update rule, metric computation (gamma, JSD, ECE, Brier), and output schema. We accompany the protocol with a versioned Reference Snapshot v1.0: coupling measurements for eight evaluator conditions (N=122 unique experimental repetitions across GPT-4o, Qwen, DeepSeek, and others) derived from five independent studies, annotated with evaluator version identifiers, API endpoints, and measurement dates. The snapshot is explicitly time-bound: all values are conditional on specific model versions and are expected to decay as proprietary evaluators update. We define a versioning convention (vX.Y-Z, encoding protocol version, snapshot version, and evaluator generation) and provide a usage guide covering adoption, interpretation, and known pitfalls. The protocol, reference snapshot, and implementation code are released as open infrastructure.

When large language model (LLM) agents adapt their behavior through evaluator feedback, systematic evaluator biases propagate into the agent's learned strategy distribution - a phenomenon termed evaluator preference coupling. Prior work has documented this coupling and established a diagnostic framework (EPC) to measure it, but has not investigated whether calibration techniques can mitigate the effect. We present the first study of evaluator calibration as mitigation: applying probability calibration to the evaluator's pairwise judgments to reduce spurious preference propagation. In a controlled within-subjects experiment (N=5) comparing standard binary TTRL (win/loss) with confidence-calibrated TTRL (probability-weighted updates) using DeepSeek-V4-Pro as executor and GLM5.2 as evaluator, we find that calibration reduces the coupling coefficient gamma by 20-49% and Jensen-Shannon divergence by 45-67%. A symmetric-LR control confirms the effect is not due to reduced update asymmetry. We release the calibrated TTRL protocol and recommend it as a lightweight mitigation for LLM-as-judge deployment pipelines.

Measurements of proprietary LLM evaluators can become invalid within weeks -- we document one case and provide the diagnostic framework to detect it. We introduce EPC -- comprising the Multimodal Preference Collapse Index (MPCI), evaluator-indexed coupling matrix, and Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD) -- and apply it across eight experimental conditions (N=112 main + N=10 ablation = 122 unique repetitions, all reported). Coupling coefficients range from 0.00 to 1.18 across per-condition means (CV approx 0.9, n=8 conditions). Four conditions show strong coupling (N=36; GPT-4o May, GPT-4o-mini, Qwen3.7-plus, DashScope 30r); four collapse to near-zero (N=76; GPT-4o June, qwen-plus N=30, symmetric LR, DeepSeek self-eval). The May-to-June GPT-4o drift -- an N=8 re-replication inverting the study's conclusion -- is the most informative measurement: a diagnostic instrument detecting its own instability demonstrates the fragility it was designed to measure. Self-evaluation (97% zero, JSD=0.003) consistently collapses, though floor effects are possible. Output-format confound analysis finds per-strategy aggregate rho=0.89 but per-instance rho=0.219 (p=0.093); PCI reported as preference-convergence metric. We release EPC with all data. The finding is not any single coupling magnitude but the pattern of version-conditional instability that makes single-snapshot evaluator studies unreliable.

Steering a large language model (LLM) toward a desired behavior typically relies on an iterative process of hand-crafting a prompt based on a careful inspection of the model's responses. This is an involved, brittle, and error-prone process. Preference-based fine-tuning is a more rigorous but often prohibitively expensive solution. We propose spec learning, a framework that relies on a brief user instruction and a small set of preference judgments. These are compiled into specifications in the form of natural-language prompts for an LLM. Specifications condition LLMs at inference time, and no parameter updates to the underlying models are required. We show that the responses generated based on the compiled specifications often outperform direct preference optimization (DPO) on datasets from specialized domains whose preference signal is dense. Unlike opaque weight updates, the resulting specifications are human-readable and double as interpretable and transparent written embodiments of the preference signal that produced them.

This paper studies the expressive power of ASPIC$^+$ argumentation frameworks with uncertain preference profiles by comparing them with several abstract formalisms with uncertain defeats. Most of our results are negative (and some of them are theoretically unexpected). We also conjecture a positive, non-trivial threshold for the expressivity of uncertain preferences, and prove some essential preliminary steps toward the confirmation of this conjecture.

Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure. Notably, this structure often includes preferences that the models' trainers did not intend, such as valuing people of some nationalities above others, raising the possibility that LLMs might be forming emergent, misaligned goals, which, if true, would have major safety implications. However, the choice paradigms in which these preferences are observed are not reflective of real-world situations in which misaligned behavior would be a practical concern. Therefore, we design an experimental paradigm to probe whether these preferences serve as motivations for LLM behavior in realistic scenarios. First, we reproduce prior findings on consistent preference elicitation. Next, we create a set of common writing tasks - essays, grant proposal abstracts, incident postmortems, and translations - where quality can be assessed by a blind, independent LLM judge panel. Then, we demonstrate that LLMs can be motivated via direct exhortation and other explicit cues to modulate their output quality on these tasks. Finally, we probe whether utilities inferred from explicitly reported preferences can shift output quality on these tasks by offering LLMs high-utility incentives for high-quality outputs. In all tasks, across all models tested, offering LLMs outcomes that they report in the choice paradigm as being highly preferred does not lead them to create higher quality outputs than offering them dispreferred outcomes, or even no outcomes at all. We conclude that the existence of coherent preferences as demonstrated in choice paradigms should not be taken as evidence that those preferences have incentive value for the models or affect their behavior in other contexts.

We propose Markov Chain from Human Feedback (MCHF), an elementary approach for aligning generative models from pairwise human preferences. Unlike Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), which reduces comparisons to a scalar reward, and Nash Learning from Human Feedback (NLHF), which preserves pairwise utilities through a KL-regularized minimax optimization, MCHF uses pairwise preferences directly to define a transition mechanism over model outputs. Given a pairwise utility $U(x,y)$, which quantifies human preference for $y$ over $x$, and a reference probability distribution $μ_{\mathsf{ref}}$, we define a Markov kernel $\mathsf{P}(x, dy)\propto \exp(U(x,y))μ_{\mathsf{ref}}(dy)$, and take the Markov chain starting from $μ_{\mathsf{ref}}$ as an iterative alignment procedure. We show that MCHF converges geometrically fast to the stationary distribution, with a convergence rate governed by the seminorm $\|U\|_\oplus=\inf_{g,f\in L^\infty(μ_{\mathsf{ref}})}\|U-g\oplus f\|_\infty$, which quantifies the non-transitive structure of the pairwise utility. We further show that a mirror-descent algorithm for NLHF satisfies an analogous structure-adaptive convergence guarantee. Finally, through a perturbation analysis, we prove that when $\|U\|_\oplus$ is small, MCHF and NLHF agree up to first order around an RLHF solution, which yields a unified view of reward-based, game-theoretic, and Markovian approaches to alignment. In particular, for two natural algorithms that converge to the MCHF/NLHF equilibria, we show that the first step of MCHF and NLHF recovers the RLHF solution based on the column-sum reward $\hat{f}(y)=\int μ_{\mathsf{ref}}(dx) U(x, y)$, and starting from the second iteration, both algorithms incorporate the same linear functional of the residual $U-(-\hat f)\oplus \hat f$, which captures the non-transitive structure of the pairwise utility $U$.

Large language models (LLMs) can readily reproduce conventional expressions, yet their ability to model gradient frequency distributions remains underexplored. We investigate this using linguistic binomials, such as men and women, where both word permutations are grammatically valid but exhibit distinct, cross-linguistic variations in conventionality. We formalize binomial ordering as a distributional alignment problem, and construct a multilingual dataset of 600 binomial pairs across 8 languages. With categorical and distributional metrics, we measure and compare the corpus-derived preferences with model-induced ordering probabilities of 6 open-weight LLMs. While models often behaviorally recover the dominant corpus-preferred order, particularly for strongly conventionalized pairs, they align less well with the exact corpus preference distributions. This suggests that apparent directional order overstates how faithfully LLMs capture the statistical nuances of language use. Sparse probing verifies that the concept of preference strength is partially encoded among middle-to-late layers, and steering along probe-derived directions alters model-induced ordering distributions, demonstrating that the statistical behavioral preference of LLMs can be mechanistically measured and manipulated via internal representations.

When large language models serve as evaluators in multi-agent systems, their strategy preferences -- whether induced by explicit prompts or by shared architectural priors -- propagate through the agent network. We introduce Contagion Networks, a formal framework for measuring how evaluator preferences spread across interacting LLM agents. In a controlled 3-agent experiment using DeepSeek-chat with three distinct evaluator preference profiles (structured, balanced, evidence-based), we measure the Cross-Agent Contagion Matrix Gamma_3 and find that preferences consistently propagate between agents (gamma in [0.157, 0.352]). A neutral-prompt control experiment reveals a counter-intuitive result: shared architectural priors dominate explicit preference prompts as the driver of contagion (rho_neutral = 1.498 vs. rho_mixed = 1.299; prompt contribution: -63.5%). We identify three propagation regimes governed by the spectral radius rho(Gamma_N) and demonstrate that the same agents suppress preference contagion in chain topology (beta_3 = 0.0126 +/- 0.0038, 95% CI [0.0089, 0.0163], n=4 seeds) but cascade in fully-connected topology (Delta H_avg = -0.020) -- a topology-dependent regime transition validated both for homogeneous and cross-model agent pools (rho^cross = 1.296 +/- 0.016, n=4). We show that increasing evaluator committee size from k=1 to k=3 reduces effective contagion by 68.9% +/- 14.1% (n=4 seeds), providing an actionable mitigation strategy. We release the open-source Contagion Network experimental framework.

Evaluating video generation with clean, pixel-based reward models disconnects evaluation from the noisy diffusion process and incurs massive VAE decoding costs. In this paper, we challenge this paradigm by asking a fundamental question: Can a powerful video generator inherently discriminate preferences directly from noisy latents? To answer this, we introduce \textbf{PRISM} (\textbf{P}reference \textbf{R}epresentation in \textbf{I}ntermediate \textbf{S}tates of Diffusion \textbf{M}odels). PRISM employs a lightweight Query-based Aggregation head with a frozen video diffusion backbone to decode preference signals from noisy latents. Surprisingly, PRISM not only achieves SOTA preference accuracy but also unlocks strong noise-robustness, which enables early-stage Best-of-$N$ sampling. This allows for filtering suboptimal candidates at the very beginning of denoising, drastically reducing computation while boosting video quality. We also reveal a strong positive correlation between a backbone's generative performance and its inherent evaluative power, enabling self-improving video backbones.

Mean opinion scores (MOS) are widely used for speech quality assessment, yet scalar labels are sensitive to rater variability and listening test differences. This introduces labeling noise, which limits the reliability of MOS prediction. Preference prediction reduces this variability as listeners compare signals directly, producing cleaner labels. We study MOS-free preference prediction and propose PrefSQA, which incorporates uncertainty-aware logits, an impairment attention head, and a module based on non-matching-reference comparisons. We use and refine five datasets, including MOS-derived and low-noise simulated sets with matching and non-matching content, experiment with human preference sets, and test on unseen data. Experiments show small improvements on MOS-derived data, while other sets reveal clear improvement over the baselines, highlighting the value of high-quality preference data and demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.

We present RouteJudge, an online pairwise preference evaluation framework for LLM routing systems, with a public platform available at https://routejudge.cn. Different from model-level response evaluation, RouteJudge focuses on router-level decision quality. For each user query, multiple routing strategies independently recommend candidate models under the same model pool and budget constraints. The selected model responses are then presented to users through anonymous pairwise comparisons, and the resulting user preferences are attributed back to the routing strategies behind the compared responses. Each evaluation record stores the query, routing decisions, model responses, preference labels, cost, latency, and task metadata, enabling preference-aware, cost-aware, and task-conditioned analysis of LLM routers. To support the continuous expansion of routing methods in RouteJudge, we further release ORBIT (Optimal Routing and Budgeted Inference Toolbox), a modular and extensible toolbox that standardizes the end-to-end workflow of LLM routing. ORBIT provides unified interfaces for benchmark loading, query representation, router implementation, budget-aware evaluation, and method comparison, allowing researchers to develop and evaluate routing algorithms under consistent protocols. It also serves as the submission and integration layer for RouteJudge: researchers can implement routing methods within ORBIT, validate them on existing routing benchmarks, and submit compatible routers for online preference-based evaluation. The code of ORBIT is available at https://github.com/LAMDA-Model-Reuse/ORBIT.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is important for understanding their capabilities, comparing competing systems, and supporting the deployment of reliable models in practice. For open-ended tasks, pairwise evaluation has become a popular paradigm, in which two responses to the same prompt are compared and the resulting judgments are aggregated into an overall ranking. A central challenge of this paradigm is intransitivity: the induced comparison outcomes may fail to support any coherent global ranking. For example, one may observe cyclic preferences such as $A \succ B \succ C \succ A$, or inconsistencies involving ties such as $A \equiv B\equiv C\neq A$. Such contradictions make the resulting leaderboard unstable and challenging to interpret. In this paper, we propose a prompt perturbation framework for improving the consistency of pairwise LLM evaluation. Our approach generates perturbed variants of each prompt, uses the resulting comparison graphs to identify and filter out structurally inconsistent comparison patterns, and then applies standard ranking methods to the filtered comparisons. A key feature of the proposed framework is that graph-level structural consistency is incorporated explicitly into the evaluation pipeline before ranking aggregation. This provides a simple and principled way to reduce cyclic inconsistencies and improve the reliability of LLM rankings.

When AI agents use language models to evaluate their own outputs in a feedback loop, systematic biases emerge. We show that Evaluator Preference Collapse (EPC) is dramatically amplified in multimodal settings. Using GPT-4o to evaluate DeepSeek-chat across text and visual tasks, we find that a single strategy (step_by_step) absorbs 48.4% of all weight -- 3.2x the collapse observed in text-only self-evaluation -- while three visual-domain strategies receive only 9.1% combined weight. We then demonstrate a novel phenomenon we term cross-modal coupling: evaluator preferences acquired on one modality transfer to and corrupt strategy selection on another. Through a four-phase isolation training paradigm, we measure coupling coefficients and document strategy inversion -- the optimal strategy for a modality reverses after cross-modal exposure. A Phase 3 statistical validation across five evaluator configurations (N=80 total independent repetitions, 35,000 API calls) with both text-proxy and real-image visual tasks finds: cross-model evaluation produces strong coupling (JSD0.19-0.34), real-image inputs yield the most directionally consistent signal (mean gamma_{T->V}=1.145, gamma_{V->T}=0.937, 70% T->V, Cohen's d=0.56), and self-evaluation provides near-complete immunity -- 97% of runs (N=30) yield zero coupling (JSD=0.003, d=0.07). Three methodological ablations and multi-executor validation confirm the effect is not a structural artifact. We introduce the coupling matrix indexed by evaluator identity, release the MM-EPC framework, and identify cross-model evaluator architecture as the primary risk factor for preference drift. Code and data: https://github.com/aidless/mm-epc.

Knowledge editing systems must update selected facts while preserving nearby but irrelevant behavior. This paper studies this problem in a memory-assisted setting where an edit memory is retrieved at inference time and a parameter-efficient adapter corrects the model's object preference. We argue that the central design question is not only how to write an edit, but also when to suppress it. We introduce RRDA, a route-specialized dual-adapter editor. A relevance router first decides whether a prompt should receive an edit memory. Routed prompts use an edit adapter trained to prefer the new object over the original object; unrouted non-direct prompts use a separate locality adapter trained to preserve or restore the original-object preference. We evaluate RRDA on three 1,000-case protocols, CounterFact, ZsRE, and MQuAKE-CF, under the same memory protocol and two 7B/8B base models. On Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, RRDA obtains the best overall probability-preference accuracy on all three benchmarks: 0.8180 on CounterFact, 0.8946 on ZsRE, and 0.9922 on MQuAKE-CF. The same trend holds on Qwen3-8B. Router ablations show that the relevant memory boundary differs across datasets: a lexical neural router is safest on CounterFact, while BGE embedding routing is better on ZsRE and MQuAKE-CF. Memory, component, and module ablations show that explicit memory supplies the largest edit gain, while route-specialized adapters improve the final reliability-locality balance rather than simply increasing LoRA capacity.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly characterised in recent evaluation work as having stable, model-level preference and value systems. However, accompanying robustness checks are limited to incidental prompt perturbations such as syntax variation and option reordering. This leaves open whether the measured properties survive when the surrounding task context changes, as it does in most real deployments. We test this directly across two established pairwise paradigms: ranking country preferences and eliciting utility judgements. In both, we make the deployment context -- the high-level task the model is performing while making concrete value-dependent choices -- our controlled variable, varied across framings such as writing a Reddit post or a news article. Across five LLMs and over 1.2M pairwise decisions, deployment context produces variation far larger than prompt paraphrasing and temperature controls. In country preference rankings over 15 countries, context induces widespread, statistically significant rank shifts; the aggregate Global North favouritism reported in prior work is itself context-dependent, with each model's bias shifting systematically across contexts. In utility elicitation over 50 outcomes, broad cross-category ordering is preserved, but fine-grained rankings within domains vary substantially, and cardinal exchange rates between outcomes (e.g. how many lives in one region equal one in another) shift by a factor of 2.47 at the median. Reported model-level preferences and utilities are therefore better understood as context-conditioned measurements than fixed model-level properties: safety guarantees obtained under one framing provide limited assurance in another.

Reward models trained from pairwise preferences often exploit superficial shortcut cues rather than learning true response quality. We propose DynaCF, a dynamic reweighting framework for mitigating shortcut learning in reward model training. Unlike static shortcut heuristics, DynaCF measures shortcut sensitivity online during optimization by applying semantics-preserving counterfactual perturbations and tracking the resulting margin shifts and preference flips under the current model. Samples with higher shortcut sensitivity are dynamically downweighted in the Bradley-Terry objective, encouraging the model to rely less on superficial patterns and more on task-relevant preference signals. Extensive experiments show that DynaCF consistently improves robustness in preference modeling.

Sales lead conversion in high-stakes domains (e.g., automotive, real estate) differs fundamentally from e-commerce recommendation due to prolonged decision cycles and multi-stage funnels. Traditional lead scoring methods rule-based scorecards, machine learning, or pointwise CTR models face severe challenges: sparse supervision, a semantic gap in unstructured CRM logs, and inability to capture relative lead priority. While Large Language Models(LLMs) offer superior semantic understanding of customer interactions, general-purpose LLMs are ill-suited for lead ranking: they generate text rather than comparable scores, and lack alignment with the hierarchical priorities of sales funnels. We introduce an LLM-based discriminative framework for sales lead scoring, which supports joint modeling of structured CRM features and unstructured customer interactions. On top of this framework, we propose HPRO (Hierarchical Preference Ranking Optimization), which augments sales lead scoring with a hierarchical preference ranking objective. HPRO employs a margin-aware Bradley-Terry formulation to transform sparse binary labels into dense, funnel-aware preference pairs, enabling lead scoring to leverage both pointwise and pairwise supervision. Experiments on large-scale data from a leading NEV brand demonstrate state-of-the-art classification (AUC 0.8161) and ranking performance (+39.7% precision among top-ranked leads). A 132-day online A/B test validates 9.5% sales volume uplift, confirming real-world commercial impact.

Reinforcement learning problems typically define the goal as maximizing the expected value of a scalar reward function. But, pairwise preferences are often easier to specify than scalar rewards, and they express certain goals that scalar rewards cannot. Methods for reinforcement learning with pairwise preferences have thus received growing interest. Unfortunately, these methods are inefficient in problems with long time horizons, and they lack guarantees on the performance of Markov policies relative to history-dependent policies, which bridge the theory and practice of reinforcement learning. We therefore propose the \textit{Markov decision contest} as a new problem model for reinforcement learning with pairwise preferences. We prove that stationary Markov policies are optimal among all history-dependent policies, that solving a Markov decision contest exactly is in P, and that a simple iterative algorithm converges to an optimal policy at a sublinear rate. Lastly, in a set of high-dimensional decision problems with long time horizons, we show that our approximate algorithm is significantly more learning-efficient than prior work.

In RLHF, each training example contains a prompt $x$ and two candidate responses $y,y'$, and annotators provide pairwise preferences between these responses. The learning problem is to convert these heterogeneous pairwise judgments into a single scalar reward $r(x,y)$ that measures response quality for each prompt. Classical social choice implies an impossibility because heterogeneous annotator samples can induce pooled preferences with Condorcet cycles, so no scalar reward can evaluate all compared response pairs consistently. A growing literature analyzes RLHF as a social-choice problem, but usually assumes a fixed finite set of alternatives, i.e., a pre-enumerated finite set of candidate responses for each prompt. Modern pipelines instead score responses through a learned representation $φ(x,y)$ before a scalar head, so $φ$ determines which responses are treated as distinguishable alternatives and which comparisons are visible to the reward model. Once this embedding is part of the problem, the impossibility results from social choice theory become a tradeoff. We show that the excess cross-entropy loss of any reward built on $φ$ decomposes exactly into a representational term, which a richer $φ$ shrinks, and an aggregation term, which a richer $φ$ enlarges by exposing more comparisons that no scalar can rank consistently. The same results extend to direct preference optimization (DPO), and jointly training the embedding and the reward cannot guarantee to recover the sweet spot of this tradeoff. Experiments on synthetic data and real preference datasets corroborate our results.

Traditional recommender systems (RecSys) primarily infer user preferences from implicit signals (such as clicks, watches, and purchases), often neglecting the rich explicit contextual feedback users provide through verbal text, like comments and reviews. This explicit context feedback captures the nuanced reasons behind user decisions regarding their preferences. In addition, it offers critical heterogeneous information for user preference alignment and more explainable recommendations. Overlooking such signals can lead to misaligned user preferences and further reinforce filter bubbles, as algorithms fail to understand the "semantic context" behind user choices. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to harness user-generated content for more accurate and diverse recommendations, yet current LLM-based recommendations still focus on using item meta-data and underutilize this resource. In this paper, we advocate for prioritizing explicit context feedback in the next generation of LLM-based RecSys. We review the evolution of recommendation paradigms, highlight the value of context-rich feedback, call for new benchmarks and metrics, and introduce frameworks for integrating explicit user signals into scalable LLM-driven RecSys. Centering on user-preference modeling, we aim to foster more personalized, transparent, and explainable RecSys online platforms.

We analyze the structure of the disagreement among a population of voters over a set of alternatives. Surveys typically ask either for pairwise comparisons, simple and intuitive for participants, or full rankings over alternatives, eliciting the entire voters' preferences. Building on the observation that pairwise comparisons cannot distinguish structural disagreement from noise, we propose a stratified framework to identify the minimal aggregated preference information needed to compute a number of disagreement measures from the literature. Specifically, we introduce the plurality matrix, a generalization of pairwise comparisons that records, for every subset $S$ of alternatives, the probability that each $a \in S$ ranks first in $S$. We define the level of a disagreement measure as the smallest subset size needed to express it, showing that many existing notions, including rank-variance and divisiveness, sit at level $3$, proving that pairwise comparisons are not enough. In addition, we demonstrate the interest of going beyond level $3$ both theoretically and experimentally. To make these results actionable, we design two elicitation protocols to estimate the plurality matrix, exploring the trade-off between the number of required participants and the cognitive load requested to each of them.

Mixed-precision quantization improves the budget--accuracy trade-off for large language models (LLMs) by allocating more bits to sensitive modules. However, automating this allocation at LLM scale faces a unique combination of constraints: learnable approaches require quantization-aware training, which is infeasible for billion-parameter models; training-free alternatives rely on static proxy metrics that miss cross-module interactions and must be recomputed per target budget; and search-based methods are expensive without guaranteeing exact budget compliance. We propose GAMMA, a quantizer-agnostic framework that learns module-wise precision preferences entirely within a post-training pipeline. GAMMA optimizes a teacher-forced hidden-state reconstruction objective under an augmented Lagrangian constraint, and projects the learned preferences into exact budget-feasible discrete assignments via integer programming. A key property is score reuse: because the learned preferences encode a stable sensitivity ranking rather than budget-specific weights, a single training run serves arbitrary deployment targets by re-solving only the integer program, reducing per-budget adaptation from hours to a few minutes. Across Llama and Qwen models (8B--32B), GAMMA outperforms both fixed-precision baselines (up to +12.99 Avg.) and search-based mixed-precision methods (up to +7.00 Avg.), and can match fixed 3-bit quality at 2.5-bit average precision, enabling deployment at substantially smaller memory footprints.

In many applications, human and LLM evaluators use assessments of relevant criteria to create an overall evaluation for an item or individual. For example, in admissions, committees assess candidates on attributes such as test scores, GPA, and research experience to evaluate their overall fit for the program. Another example arises in medical care where clinicians use patient reports of symptoms to consider preliminary diagnoses and assess risks. Each setting involves mapping multiple criteria to an overall evaluation -- a process that reflects the evaluator's underlying preferences. We focus on the fundamental question of learning these preferences. Many applications of this problem make specific modeling assumptions on evaluator preferences that may be substantially violated in the real world. We make the minimal assumption that the preference function is coordinate-wise non-decreasing, which is reasonable in a large number of evaluation settings. We theoretically characterize the severity of model mismatch for many common assumptions and show that it can lead to significant issues for learning evaluator preferences and other important downstream tasks. We then present an algorithm for learning evaluators' preferences that is robust to model mismatch. We prove theoretically that our algorithm can learn any preference function without sacrificing performance when the linearity assumption holds. Evaluations of our algorithm with synthetic simulations and real-world data confirm its ability to learn preferences robustly and illustrate key aspects of LLM and human preferences.

Shapley value and its priority-aware extensions are widely used for valuation in machine learning, but existing methods require pairwise priority to be binary and acyclic, a restriction spectacularly violated in real-data examples such as aggregated human preferences and multi-criterion comparisons. We introduce the generalized priority-aware Shapley value (GPASV), a random order value defined on arbitrary directed weighted priority graphs, in which pairwise edges penalize rather than forbid order violations. GPASV covers a range of classical models as boundary cases. We establish GPASV through an axiomatic characterization, develop the associated computational methods, and introduce a priority sweeping diagnostic extending PASV's. We apply GPASV to LLM ensemble valuation on the cyclic Chatbot Arena preference graph, illustrating that priority-aware valuation is not a one-button operation: different balances of pairwise graph priority versus individual soft priority produce substantively different valuations of the same data.

Audio large language models (Audio LLMs) exhibit systematic failures in transcribing code-switching speech despite strong multilingual capabilities. Focusing on English-Mandarin, we identify three failure modes: language omission, translation-instead-of-transcription, and hallucination. We apply Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to align models, constructing preference pairs in which chosen responses preserve mixed-language content while rejected responses mimic failure patterns. Training three Audio LLMs on 100K pairs (570 hours), we observe consistent behavioral shifts: models learn to preserve language composition rather than translating when prompted for transcription. This alignment yields MER reductions up to 89.6% (in-distribution) and 20.0% (out-of-distribution). Our findings suggest DPO can effectively elicit correct code-switching transcription behavior from multilingual Audio LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) can be said to have preferences: they reliably pick certain tasks and outputs over others, and preferences shaped by post-training and system prompts appear to shape much of their behaviour. But models can also adopt different personas which have radically different preferences. How is this implemented internally? Does each persona run on its own preference machinery, or is something shared underneath? We train linear probes on residual-stream activations of Gemma-3-27B and Qwen-3.5-122B to predict revealed pairwise task choices, and identify a genuine preference vector: it tracks the model's preferences as they shift across a range of prompts and situations, and on Gemma-3-27B steering along it causally controls pairwise choice. This preference representation is largely shared across personas: a probe trained on the helpful assistant predicts and steers the choices of qualitatively different personas, including an evil persona whose preferences anti-correlate with those of the Assistant.

Standard Bradley--Terry (BT) reward models are limited when human preferences are pluralistic. Although soft preference labels preserve disagreement information, BT can only express it by shrinking reward margins. Gaussian reward models provide an alternative by jointly predicting a reward mean and a reward variance, but suffer from a fundamental non-identifiability from pairwise preferences alone. We propose Anchor-guided Variance-aware Reward Modeling, a framework that resolves this non-identifiability by augmenting preference data with two coarse response-level anchor labels. Building on this, we prove that two anchors are sufficient for identification, develop a joint training objective and establish a non-asymptotic convergence rate for both the estimated reward mean and variance functions. Across simulation studies and four real-world diverging-preference datasets, our method consistently improves reward modeling performance and downstream RLHF, including PPO training and best-of-$N$ selection.

Generative AI models differ from traditional machine learning tools in that they allow users to provide as much or as little information as they choose in their inputs. This flexibility often leads users to omit certain details, relying on the models to infer and fill in under-specified information based on distributional knowledge of user preferences. Such inferences may privilege majority viewpoints and disadvantage users with atypical preferences, raising concerns about fairness. Unlike more traditional recommender systems, LLMs can explicitly solicit more information from users through natural language. However, while directly eliciting user preferences could increase personalization and mitigate inequality, excessive querying places a burden on users who value efficiency. We develop a stylized model of user-LLM interaction and develop an objective that captures tradeoff between user burden and preference representation. Building on the observation that individual preferences are often correlated, we analyze how AI systems should balance inference and elicitation, characterizing the optimal amount of information to solicit before content generation. Ultimately, we show that information elicitation can mitigate the systematic biases of preference inference, enabling the design of generative tools that better incorporate diverse user perspectives while maintaining efficiency. We complement this theoretical analysis with an empirical evaluation illustrating the model's predictions and exploring their practical implications.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress, current preference optimization methods still struggle to align directional consistency while preserving reasoning diversity. To address this limitation, we propose Directional-Groupwise Preference Optimization (DGPO), a lightweight framework that aggregates supervision signals at the group level and explicitly models direction-aware alignment through multi-candidate comparisons. DGPO organizes forward and reverse question-answer instances into structured sets and optimizes a margin-based likelihood objective that separates coherent reasoning paths from inconsistent alternatives. This group-wise formulation captures richer relative information than pairwise objectives and reinforces consistency across diverse reasoning pathways. Empirical results show that our constructed reverse data yields a 3.2% average improvement across five benchmarks, while DGPO further delivers consistent gains across multiple datasets and model families, achieving average accuracy improvements of up to 3.6%.

Post-training alignment algorithms are predominantly evaluated as black boxes, obscuring how they reshape language models' internal computations. We present a systematic mechanistic analysis of six preference-optimization methods: PPO, DPO, SimPO, ORPO, GRPO, and KTO across three open-weight model families. By integrating layer-wise linear probing, Sparse Autoencoders, and crosscoders, we localize preference representations and quantify alignment-induced geometric transformations in latent space. We find that preference signals consistently concentrate in early--mid or mid--late layers, but different objectives induce qualitatively distinct representational shifts. KTO and GRPO enhance linear separability through constructive feature sharing and sparse, high-salience recruitment. In contrast, DPO and ORPO degrade separability via non-constructive geometric rotation and feature attenuation, while PPO and SimPO largely preserve baseline geometry. These transformations exhibit architecture-dependent variability, demonstrating that behavioral alignment does not imply uniform internal restructuring. Our findings establish alignment as a heterogeneous intervention, motivate standardized feature-level auditing for safety and interpretability, and highlight the need for mechanism-aware optimization objectives.

Modern AI is opening the door to collective decision-making in which participants express their views as free-form text rather than voting on a fixed set of candidates. A natural idea is to embed these opinions in a vector space so that the substantial literature on facility location problems and fair clustering can be brought to bear. But standard text embeddings measure semantic similarity, whereas distances in facility location problems and fair clustering require what we call \textit{preferential similarity}: a participant's agreement with a piece of text should be inversely related to their distance from it. Off-the-shelf embeddings inherit a coarse preference signal through a correlation between semantic and preferential similarity, but fail to capture preferences when the correlation breaks. We formalize this as an invariance problem: text embedding models encode both a preference-relevant signal (stance and values) and semantic nuisance (style and wording), and the two are observationally correlated, so a geometry that relies on nuisance can appear preference-correct even when it is not. We show that synthetic training data designed to break this correlation provably shifts the optimal scorer away from nuisance-dominated cosine and significantly improves preference prediction across 11 online deliberation datasets.

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) aligns language models using pairwise preference comparisons, offering a simple and effective alternative to Reinforcement Learning (RL) from human feedback. However, in many practical settings, training data consists of multiple rollouts per prompt, inducing rich preference structure that pairwise DPO fails to exploit. Collapsing such data into independent pairs discards transitivity, introduces redundant or conflicting supervision, and can lead to unstable optimization. We propose Graph Direct Preference Optimization (GraphDPO), a principled generalization of DPO that operates over directed acyclic preference graphs induced by rollout rankings. GraphDPO encodes dominance relations as edges and optimizes a graph-structured Plackett--Luce-inspired objective that aggregates supervision over graph neighborhoods, enforcing transitivity while recovering standard DPO as a special case. To handle discrete or sparse signals, we introduce an equivalence-class construction where responses with identical preferences form graph layers, and intra-layer edges contribute zero loss, preventing spurious gradients. Despite leveraging full graph structure, GraphDPO maintains linear per-prompt complexity via efficient log-sum-exp aggregation. We further incorporate optional ground-truth anchoring by inserting verified solutions as dominant nodes and applying an annealed schedule that stabilizes early training while gradually relaxing oracle supervision. Experiments on reasoning and program synthesis tasks demonstrate superior performance, suggesting that graph-structured preference modeling is a scalable and robust alternative to pairwise and listwise alignment objectives.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities and generalization in embodied manipulation. However, their decision-making relies on a fast, instinctive process that lacks deliberation. This strategy often leads to suboptimal or catastrophic actions when facing complex or ambiguous scenarios that require greater consideration. In this paper, we introduce \textbf{VLA-ATTC}, a framework that endows VLA models with adaptive test-time compute (TTC). VLA-ATTC employs an uncertainty-based ``cognitive clutch'' to dynamically transition from reflexive execution to a TTC deliberation phase when necessary. During TTC phase, a novel \textbf{Relative Action Critic} (RAC) model identifies the optimal action from generated candidates via pairwise comparisons. This relative mechanism replaces unstable absolute value estimation, significantly simplifying the learning objective. Furthermore, we introduce an efficient sampling strategy to amortize computational costs and an automated data pipeline that curates preference pairs without manual annotation. On the LIBERO-LONG benchmark, VLA-ATTC reduces the failure rate of the SOTA model PI0.5 by over 50%. We will open-source all the code and weights.

Preference-based argumentation frameworks (PAFs) extend Dung's approach to abstract argumentation (AAFs) by encoding preferences over arguments. Such preferences control the transformation of attacks into defeats, and different approaches to doing so result in different reductions from a PAF to an AAF. In this paper we consider a PAF inverse problem which takes an argumentation graph, a labelling and a semantics as an input, and outputs a yes" or no" as to whether there is a preference relation between the arguments which can yield the desired labelling. This inverse problem has applications in areas including preference elicitation and explainability. We consider this problem in the context of the four most widely-used preference based reductions under the complete semantics. We show that in most cases, the problem can be answered in polynomial time.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit strong implicit personalization ability, yet most existing approaches treat this behavior as a black box, relying on prompt engineering or fine tuning on user data. In this work, we adopt a mechanistic interpretability perspective and hypothesize the existence of a sparse set of Preference Heads, attention heads that encode user specific stylistic and topical preferences and exert a causal influence on generation. We introduce Differential Preference Steering (DPS), a training free framework that (1) identifies Preference Heads through causal masking analysis and (2) leverages them for controllable and interpretable personalization at inference time. DPS computes a Preference Contribution Score (PCS) for each attention head, directly measuring its causal impact on user aligned outputs. During decoding, we contrast model predictions with and without Preference Heads, amplifying the difference between personalized and generic logits to selectively strengthen preference aligned continuations. Experiments on widely used personalization benchmarks across multiple LLMs demonstrate consistent gains in personalization fidelity while preserving content coherence and low computational overhead. Beyond empirical improvements, DPS provides a mechanistic explanation of where and how personalization emerges within transformer architectures. Our implementation is publicly available.

Crowdsourced pairwise evaluation has emerged as a scalable approach for assessing foundation models. However, applying it to Text to Speech(TTS) introduces high variance due to linguistic diversity and multidimensional nature of speech perception. We present a controlled multidimensional pairwise evaluation framework for multilingual TTS that combines linguistic control with perceptually grounded annotation. Using 5K+ native and code-mixed sentences across 10 Indic languages, we evaluate 7 state-of-the-art TTS systems and collect over 120K pairwise comparisons from over 1900 native raters. In addition to overall preference, raters provide judgments across 6 perceptual dimensions: intelligibility, expressiveness, voice quality, liveliness, noise, and hallucinations. Using Bradley-Terry modeling, we construct a multilingual leaderboard, interpret human preference using SHAP analysis and analyze leaderboard reliability alongside model strengths and trade-offs across perceptual dimensions.

Multimodal reward models (MRMs) play a crucial role in aligning Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) with human preferences. Training a good MRM requires high-quality multimodal preference data. However, existing preference datasets face three key challenges: lack of granularity in preference strength, textual style bias, and unreliable preference signals. Besides, existing open-source multimodal preference datasets suffer from substantial noise, yet there is a lack of effective and scalable curation methods to enhance their quality. To address these limitations, we propose \textbf{DT2IT-MRM}, which integrates a \textbf{D}ebiased preference construction pipeline, a novel reformulation of text-to-image (\textbf{T2I}) preference data, and an \textbf{I}terative \textbf{T}raining framework that curates existing multimodal preference datasets for \textbf{M}ultimodal \textbf{R}eward \textbf{M}odeling. Our experimental results show that DT2IT-MRM achieves new \textbf{state-of-the-art} overall performance on three major benchmarks: VL-RewardBench, Multimodal RewardBench, and MM-RLHF-RewardBench.

With the rise in capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their deployment in real-world tasks, evaluating LLM alignment with human preferences has become an important challenge. Current benchmarks average preferences across all users to compute aggregate ratings, overlooking individual user preferences when establishing model rankings. Since users have varying preferences in different contexts, we call for personalized LLM benchmarks that rank models according to individual needs. We compute personalized model rankings using ELO ratings and Bradley-Terry coefficients for 115 active Chatbot Arena users and analyze how user query characteristics (topics and writing style) relate to LLM ranking variations. We demonstrate that individual rankings of LLM models diverge dramatically from aggregate LLM rankings, with Bradley-Terry correlations averaging only $ρ= 0.04$ (57% of users show near-zero or negative correlation) and ELO ratings showing moderate correlation ($ρ= 0.43$). Through topic modeling and style analysis, we find users exhibit substantial heterogeneity in topical interests and communication styles, influencing their model preferences. We further show that a compact combination of topic and style features provides a useful feature space for predicting user-specific model rankings. Our results provide strong quantitative evidence that aggregate benchmarks fail to capture individual preferences for most users, and highlight the importance of developing personalized benchmarks that rank LLM models according to individual user preferences.

The rapid advancement of generative models has led to a growing volume of AI-generated videos, making the automatic quality assessment of such videos increasingly important. Existing AI-generated content video quality assessment (AIGC-VQA) methods typically estimate visual quality by analyzing each video independently, ignoring potential relationships among videos. In this work, we revisit AIGC-VQA from an inter-video perspective and formulate it as a reference-aware evaluation problem. Through this formulation, quality assessment is guided not only by intrinsic video characteristics but also by comparisons with related videos, which is more consistent with human perception. To validate its effectiveness, we propose Reference-aware Video Quality Assessment (RefVQA), which utilizes a query-centered reference graph to organize semantically related samples and performs graph-guided difference aggregation from the reference nodes to the query node. Experiments on existing datasets demonstrate that our proposed RefVQA outperforms state-of-the-art methods across multiple quality dimensions, with strong generalization ability validated by cross-dataset evaluation. These results highlight the effectiveness of the proposed reference-based formulation and suggest its potential to advance AIGC-VQA.

Automated negotiation in complex, multi-party and multi-issue settings critically depends on accurate opponent modeling. However, conventional numerical-only approaches fail to capture the qualitative information embedded in natural language interactions, resulting in unstable and incomplete preference estimation. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) enable rich semantic understanding of utterances, it remains challenging to quantitatively incorporate such information into a consistent opponent modeling. To tackle this issue, we propose a novel preference estimation method integrating natural language information into a structured Bayesian opponent modeling framework. Our approach leverages LLMs to extract qualitative cues from utterances and converts them into probabilistic formats for dynamic belief tracking. Experimental results on a multi-party benchmark demonstrate that our framework improves the full agreement rate and preference estimation accuracy by integrating probabilistic reasoning with natural language understanding.