analiza aiqbench
This study introduces an empirical pipeline using revealed preference theory to evaluate how large language models weigh tradeoffs in high-stakes scenarios like medical diagnosis. By fitting discrete choice models to observed decisions, the research reveals significant gaps between a model's stated objectives and its actual behavior when steered by user prompts. The findings highlight critical challenges in ensuring internal coherence and faithful adoption of preferences for frontier AI systems.
Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering?
arXiv:2605.08556v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used to make or support high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, where alignment depends not only on factual accuracy but on how models weigh tradeoffs between different outcomes. We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize: we elicit the model's probability distribution over unknowns along with the choice it would make for the decision task and then fit a discrete choice model to recover the cost function that best rationalizes the model's decisions. We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way, whether they can verbalize a description of their objectives which matches their revealed decision policy, and whether prompting can reliably steer those policies to implement a user-specified cost function. We apply this evaluation across four medical diagnosis domains and multiple frontier and open-source models. We find that while many models have a nontrivial degree of internal coherence, they also have significant weaknesses in faithfully reporting or adopting preferences in response to user direction.
Title:Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering?
Abstract:LLMs are increasingly used to make or support high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, where alignment depends not only on factual accuracy but on how models weigh tradeoffs between different outcomes. We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize: we elicit the model's probability distribution over unknowns along with the choice it would make for the decision task and then fit a discrete choice model to recover the cost function that best rationalizes the model's decisions. We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way, whether they can verbalize a description of their objectives which matches their revealed decision policy, and whether prompting can reliably steer those policies to implement a user-specified cost function. We apply this evaluation across four medical diagnosis domains and multiple frontier and open-source models. We find that while many models have a nontrivial degree of internal coherence, they also have significant weaknesses in faithfully reporting or adopting preferences in response to user direction.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2605.08556 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2605.08556v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.08556 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 273 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026
Some Intuitions on Steering Vectors
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026

What We're Up Against: An AI Safety Crash Course
LessWrong · 24 sept. 2026
Measuring Reward-Seeking via Contrastive Belief Updates
LessWrong · 21 iul. 2026