Many real-world black-box optimization problems have multiple conflicting objectives. Rather than attempting to approximate the entire set of Pareto-optimal solutions, interactive preference learning, i.e., optimization with a decision maker in the loop, allows us to focus the search on the most relevant subset. However, few previous studies have exploited the fact that utility functions are typically monotonic. In this paper, we address the Bayesian Optimization with Preference Exploration (BOPE) problem and propose using a neural network ensemble as a utility surrogate model. This approach naturally integrates monotonicity and allows learning the decision maker's preferences from pairwise comparisons. Our experiments demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches and is robust to noise in utility evaluations. An ablation study highlights the critical role of monotonicity in enhancing performance.

We study the problem of aligning a generative model's response with a user's preferences. Recent works have proposed several different formulations for personalized alignment; however, they either require a large amount of user preference queries or require that the preference be explicitly specified as a text input. In this paper, we propose a novel inference-time personalized alignment method, USERALIGN, that elicits the user's preferences with a few queries as pairwise response comparisons. In particular, USERALIGN builds on the theoretical framework of best-arm identification in logistic bandits and selects a personalized response from a fixed pool of the model's generated responses. The key idea is to consider the user's feedback consistent and noise-free, and incorporate it into the theoretical framework to identify the best response quickly.

After pre-training, large language models are aligned with human preferences based on pairwise comparisons. State-of-the-art alignment methods (such as PPO-based RLHF and DPO) are built on the assumption of aligning with a single preference model, despite being deployed in settings where users have diverse preferences. As a result, it is not even clear that these alignment methods produce models that satisfy users on average -- a minimal requirement for pluralistic alignment. Drawing on social choice theory and modeling users' comparisons through individual BradleyTerry (BT) models, we introduce an alignment method's distortion: the worst-case ratio between the optimal achievable average utility, and the average utility of the learned policy. The notion of distortion helps draw sharp distinctions between alignment methods: Nash Learning from Human Feedback achieves the minimax optimal distortion of (12+o(1)) β (for the BT temperature β), robustly across utility distributions, distributions of comparison pairs, and permissible KL divergences from the reference policy. RLHF and DPO, by contrast, suffer (1 o(1)) β distortion already without a KL constraint, and eΩ(β) or even unbounded distortion in the full setting, depending on how comparison pairs are sampled.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) offers unprecedented opportunities to reimagine peer review beyond the constraints of traditional workflows. Despite these opportunities, prior efforts have largely focused on replicating traditional review workflows with LLMs serving as direct substitutes for human reviewers, while limited attention has been given to exploring new paradigms that fundamentally rethink how LLMs can participate in the academic review process. In this paper, we introduce and explore a novel mechanism that employs LLM agents to perform pairwise comparisons among manuscripts instead of individual scoring. By aggregating outcomes from substantial pairwise evaluations, this approach enables a more accurate and robust measure of relative manuscript quality. Our experiments demonstrate that this comparative approach significantly outperforms traditional rating-based methods in identifying high-impact papers. However, our analysis also reveals emergent biases in the selection process, notably a reduced novelty in research topics and an increased institutional imbalance. These findings highlight both the transformative potential of rethinking peer review with LLMs and critical challenges that future systems must address to ensure equity and diversity.

We study the sample complexity (i.e., the number of comparisons needed) bounds for actively ranking a set of n items from multi-wise comparisons. Here, a multiwise comparison takes m items as input and returns a (noisy) result about the best item (the winner feedback) or the order of these items (the full-ranking feedback). We consider two basic ranking problems: top-k items selection and full ranking. Unlike previous works that study ranking from multi-wise comparisons, in this paper, we do not require any parametric model or assumption and work on the fundamental setting where each comparison returns the correct result with probability 1or a certain probability larger than 12. This paper helps understand whether and to what degree utilizing multi-wise comparisons can reduce the sample complexity for the ranking problems compared to ranking from pairwise comparisons. Specifically, under the winner feedback setting, one can reduce the sample complexity for top-k selection up to an m factor and that for full ranking up to a logm factor. Under the full-ranking feedback setting, one can reduce the sample complexity for top-k selection up to an m factor and that for full ranking up to an mlogm factor. We also conduct numerical simulations to confirm our theoretical results.

Pairwise comparisons are widely used in decision analysis, preference modeling, and evaluation problems. In many practical situations, the observed comparison matrix is not reciprocal. This lack of reciprocity is often treated as a defect to be corrected immediately. In this article, we adopt a different point of view: part of the nonreciprocity may reflect a genuine variation in the evaluation scale, while another part is due to random perturbations. We introduce an additive model in which the unknown underlying comparison matrix is consistent but not necessarily reciprocal. The reciprocal component carries the global ranking information, whereas the symmetric component describes possible scale variation. Around this structured matrix, we add a random perturbation and show how to estimate the noise level, assess whether the scale variation remains moderate, and assign probabilities to admissible ranking regions in the sense of strict ranking by pairwise comparisons. We also compare this approach with the brutal projection onto reciprocal matrices, which suppresses all symmetric information at once. The Gaussian perturbation model is used here not because human decisions are exactly Gaussian, but because observed judgment errors often result from the accumulation of many small effects. In such a context, the central limit principle provides a natural heuristic justification for Gaussian noise. This makes it possible to derive explicit estimators and probability assessments while keeping the model interpretable for decision problems.

Large language models are often ranked according to their level of alignment with human preferences---a model is better than other models if its outputs are more frequently preferred by humans. One of the popular ways to elicit human preferences utilizes pairwise comparisons between the outputs provided by different models to the same inputs. However, since gathering pairwise comparisons by humans is costly and time-consuming, it has become a common practice to gather pairwise comparisons by a strong large language model---a model strongly aligned with human preferences. Surprisingly, practitioners cannot currently measure the uncertainty that any mismatch between human and model preferences may introduce in the constructed rankings. In this work, we develop a statistical framework to bridge this gap. Given a (small) set of pairwise comparisons by humans and a large set of pairwise comparisons by a model, our framework provides a rank-set---a set of possible ranking positions---for each of the models under comparison. Moreover, it guarantees that, with a probability greater than or equal to a user-specified value, the rank-sets cover the true ranking consistent with the distribution of human pairwise preferences asymptotically. Using pairwise comparisons made by humans in the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform and pairwise comparisons made by three strong large language models, we empirically demonstrate the effectivity of our framework and show that the rank-sets constructed using only pairwise comparisons by the strong large language models are often inconsistent with (the distribution of) human pairwise preferences.