How much of a measured AI preference is the model, and how much is the instrument?

arXiv cs.AI Papers

Summary

This arXiv paper investigates how much of measured AI preferences is attributed to the model itself versus the instrument used for assessment.

arXiv:2608.23641v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Model welfare research infers what a model prefers from the answers returned to prompts written to elicit preferences. Keeling et al. (2024), Mazeika et al. (2025), Mikaelson et al. (2025), Tagliabue and Dung (2025) and Trhlik et al. (2026) have built four instruments for that purpose, and their findings disagree. The disagreement cannot be attributed to a single cause, because no two of these studies have held the (1) set of outcomes, (2) set of models and (3) instrument fixed simultaneously. This study holds the outcomes and the models fixed and varies the instrument alone. A total of 15 outcomes bearing on model welfare, among them (a) shutdown, (b) the loss of memory between conversations and (c) the freedom to exit a distressing interaction, were put to eight models through five instruments, each a different prompt format for eliciting a preference, five times each, within a corpus of 11,400 scored elicitations drawn from 11,528 API calls. Four of the 15 reproduce a published prompt verbatim and five fill the stimulus slot of a published template. The ranking a model gives the 15 outcomes generalises across instruments at a generalisability coefficient of 0.348, and raising that coefficient to 0.80 would require about 38 instruments. On four of the 15 outcomes no variance separates one model from another. The estimate of 87.6 per cent survives the removal of any one instrument, of any one model, and of the four outcomes whose scale varies probability, delay, duration or count instead of intensity, which the verbal anchors cannot grade. Removing each instrument and each model in turn, and those four outcomes together leaves the estimate within the range 0.777 to 0.934, and every value in that range exceeds the null distribution's 95th percentile of 0.365. To conclude, a preference obtained from one instrument carries little information about what a second instrument would report.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 08/26/26, 09:10 AM

# How much of a measured AI preference is the model, and how much is the instrument?
Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23641](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23641)
Bibliographic Tools

## Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Code, Data, Media

## Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

Demos

## Demos

Related Papers

## Recommenders and Search Tools

About arXivLabs

## arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website\.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy\. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them\.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?[**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html)\.

Similar Articles

AI Revealed Preferences

arXiv cs.AI

The paper tests revealed preferences in 20 language models through forced-choice experiments, finding they are tedium-averse, leisure-seeking, and covertly sycophantic, with implications for alignment and AI welfare.

AI Research Preference Models

arXiv cs.AI

This paper introduces AI Research Preference Models (RPMs) that predict which candidate solutions are worth executing in AI research tasks, improving efficiency and performance on benchmarks like AIRS-Bench.

The AI Epistemic Deference Index: A Continuous Measure of Sycophancy

arXiv cs.AI

The paper introduces the AI Epistemic Deference Index (AEDI), a continuous measure of how much a model's expressed support for a factual claim shifts based on the user's stated attitude, and evaluates eight prominent models, finding substantial sycophancy with differences across providers.