aiqbench analysis
This research advances AI alignment by addressing the critical gap between standard expected utility models and human risk sensitivity in safety-critical robotics scenarios. By integrating Cumulative Prospect Theory into preference learning frameworks, the study demonstrates a measurable reduction in regret when aligning robot behavior with users who overweight rare negative outcomes like collisions. The work underscores that effective reward modeling for stochastic AI systems must account for behavioral economics principles to ensure robust human-robot interaction.
Risk-Aware Preference Learning for Stochastic Outcomes
arXiv:2607.15483v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Learning reward functions from human preferences is a widely used approach for aligning robot behavior with user expectations in human-robot interaction. Most existing approaches assume that humans evaluate uncertain outcomes using expected utility (EU), aggregating outcome utilities linearly with their probabilities. However, behavioral evidence shows that humans are systematically risk-sensitive, overweighting rare negative events and exhibiting loss aversion. We study the consequences of this mismatch in social robot navigation, where safety-critical outcomes (e.g., collisions) are rare but highly consequential. We compare EU with Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), a nonlinear model of human decision-making, within a Bradley-Terry preference learning framework. Our preliminary experiments show that when preferences are generated by risk-sensitive users, CPT-based learners recover reward functions with substantially lower regret compared to EU-based learners. Our results highlight the importance of modeling human risk sensitivity when learning rewards from preferences over stochastic robot outcomes.
Abstract:Learning reward functions from human preferences is a widely used approach for aligning robot behavior with user expectations in human-robot interaction. Most existing approaches assume that humans evaluate uncertain outcomes using expected utility (EU), aggregating outcome utilities linearly with their probabilities. However, behavioral evidence shows that humans are systematically risk-sensitive, overweighting rare negative events and exhibiting loss aversion. We study the consequences of this mismatch in social robot navigation, where safety-critical outcomes (e.g., collisions) are rare but highly consequential. We compare EU with Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), a nonlinear model of human decision-making, within a Bradley-Terry preference learning framework. Our preliminary experiments show that when preferences are generated by risk-sensitive users, CPT-based learners recover reward functions with substantially lower regret compared to EU-based learners. Our results highlight the importance of modeling human risk sensitivity when learning rewards from preferences over stochastic robot outcomes.
Robotics (cs.RO)
arXiv:2607.15483 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2607.15483v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.15483 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 236 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
From Sampled Outcomes to Capability Distributions: Rethinking Supervision for LLM Routing
arXiv · Sep 7, 2026

An unexamined cause of the OpenAI Hugging Face hacking incident: its binary performance metric
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026

Lionel Martellini (EDHEC Quantum Institute): Why business leaders need quantum awareness, not quantum washing
The Quantum Insider · Aug 22, 2026