Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Aligning to Illusions: Choice Blindness in Human and AI Feedback

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) assumes annotator preferences reflect stable internal states. We challenge this through three experiments spanning the preference pipeline. In a human choice blindness study, 91% of surreptitiously swapped preferences go undetected, extending choice blindness to third-person evaluative comparison of unfamiliar text. Testing fifteen LLM judges as potential replacements, we find detection relies on shallow text matching rather than genuine self-monitoring: removing prior reasoning from context causes blindness to surge from near-zero to over 50%, while explicit social pressure induces near-universal compliance. In a dose-response experiment ...

AuthorsWenbin Wu
Primary categorycs.CL
Published9 March 2026
Last updated at source9 March 2026
cs.CLcs.AI
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/b8e89289-3c17-4209-8805-0776a0fc157f" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Popularity, last 2 days

0 now. Counts as reported by the source, snapshotted daily by Silytics.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 18 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.