REVIEW 4 cited by
Mapping Social Choice Theory to RLHF
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent work on the limitations of using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to incorporate human preferences into model behavior often raises social choice theory as a reference point. Social choice theory's analysis of settings such as voting mechanisms provides technical infrastructure that can inform how to aggregate human preferences amid disagreement. We analyze the problem settings of social choice and RLHF, identify key differences between them, and discuss how these differences may affect the RLHF interpretation of well-known technical results in social choice.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Power and Limitations of Aggregation in Compound AI Systems
In a principal-agent model of compound AI, aggregation expands the set of outputs a designer can elicit exactly when one of three mechanisms — feasibility expansion, support expansion, or binding set contraction — hol...
-
Aggregated Individual Reporting for Post-Deployment Evaluation
The authors formalize a mechanism for collecting and aggregating public reports about deployed AI systems, aiming to surface unknown harms and enable accountability.
-
Theoretical Tensions in RLHF: Reconciling Empirical Success with Inconsistencies in Social Choice Theory
RLHF reward modeling satisfies pairwise majority and Condorcet consistency when each response pair is labeled once, because the maximum likelihood ranking then matches the Copeland rule.
-
Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontiers
A taxonomy-based survey of bidirectional game theory and LLM research, spanning evaluation, alignment, economic competition, and LLM-driven game solving.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.