Pith. sign in

Can an LLM Learn Preferences from Choice Data?

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

Can large language models (LLMs) learn a decision maker's preferences from observed choices and generate preference-consistent recommendations in new situations? We propose a portable Simulate-Recommend-Evaluate framework that tests preference learning from revealed-choice data by comparing LLM recommendations with optimal choices implied by known preference primitives. We apply the framework to choice under uncertainty using the disappointment aversion model. Recommendation accuracy improves as models observe more choices, but learning is heterogeneous across preference types and LLMs: GPT learns risk aversion better than disappointment aversion, Gemini performs best in high disappointment-aversion regions, and Claude shows the broadest effective learning across parameter regions.

fields

cs.GT 1

years

2026 1

verdicts

UNVERDICTED 1

representative citing papers

Do Matching Mechanisms Work with LLM Agents?

cs.GT · 2026-06-02 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

Centralized matching mechanisms outperform free negotiation in stability and efficiency with LLM agents, who also report preferences truthfully more often than humans, though not always in line with strategy-proofness predictions.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • Do Matching Mechanisms Work with LLM Agents? cs.GT · 2026-06-02 · unverdicted · none · ref 77 · internal anchor

    Centralized matching mechanisms outperform free negotiation in stability and efficiency with LLM agents, who also report preferences truthfully more often than humans, though not always in line with strategy-proofness predictions.