Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Inverse Constitutional AI: Compressing Preferences into Principles

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

arxiv 2406.06560 v2 pith:DJG7VJPI submitted 2024-06-02 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords datafeedbackmodelspreferencesicaiconstitutionaldatasetspreference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Feedback data is widely used for fine-tuning and evaluating state-of-the-art AI models. Pairwise text preferences, where human or AI annotators select the "better" of two options, are particularly common. Such preferences are used to train (reward) models or to rank models with aggregate statistics. For many applications it is desirable to understand annotator preferences in addition to modelling them - not least because extensive prior work has shown various unintended biases in preference datasets. Yet, preference datasets remain challenging to interpret. Neither black-box reward models nor statistics can answer why one text is preferred over another. Manual interpretation of the numerous (long) response pairs is usually equally infeasible. In this paper, we introduce the Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) problem, formulating the interpretation of pairwise text preference data as a compression task. In constitutional AI, a set of principles (a constitution) is used to provide feedback and fine-tune AI models. ICAI inverts this process: given a feedback dataset, we aim to extract a constitution that best enables a large language model (LLM) to reconstruct the original annotations. We propose a corresponding ICAI algorithm and validate its generated constitutions quantitatively based on annotation reconstruction accuracy on several datasets: (a) synthetic feedback data with known principles; (b) AlpacaEval cross-annotated human feedback data; (c) crowdsourced Chatbot Arena data; and (d) PRISM data from diverse demographic groups. As a short and interpretable representation of the original dataset, generated constitutions have many potential use cases: help identify undesirable annotator biases, understand model performance better, scale feedback to unseen data, or adapt models to individual user or group preferences. We release the source code at https://github.com/rdnfn/icai.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AI Alignment at Your Discretion

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper formalizes alignment discretion and shows empirically that annotators and models exercise substantial, often arbitrary, and mutually divergent discretion when applying alignment principles.

  2. Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Prompt-based legal canons and iterative rule refinement reduce disagreement among LLM judges about whether a response complies with natural-language rules.

  3. Chain of Alignment: Integrating Public Will with Expert Intelligence for Language Model Alignment

    cs.HC 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The chain of alignment method derives model behavior rules from publicly supported objectives and yields an automated reward that tracks expert ratings of response alignment (r=0.841).

  4. Alignment Plausibility: A New Standard for Assuring AI in Healthcare

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Alignment plausibility—evidence that an AI system's values, training, and oversight cohere with safe positive health outcomes—should be the regulatory analogue of biological plausibility for LLMs in healthcare.

Pith tools