mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Whose Preferences? Differences in Fairness Preferences and Their Impact on the Fairness of AI Utilizing Human Feedback

arXiv 2406.05902 ↗First posted 9 Jun 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 6

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

There is a growing body of work on learning from human feedback to align various aspects of machine learning systems with human values and preferences. We consider the setting of fairness in content moderation, in which human feedback is used to determine how two comments -- referencing different sensitive attribute groups -- should be treated in comparison to one another. With a novel dataset collected from Prolific and MTurk, we find significant gaps in fairness preferences depending on the race, age, political stance, educational level, and LGBTQ+ identity of annotators. We also demonstrate that demographics mentioned in text have a strong influence on how users perceive individual fairness in moderation. Further, we find that differences also exist in downstream classifiers trained to predict human preferences. Finally, we observe that an ensemble, giving equal weight to classifiers trained on annotations from different demographics, performs better for different demographic intersections; compared to a single classifier that gives equal weight to each annotation.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 19 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2024.

Builds on

19 of 45 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023The Past, Present and Better Future of Feedback Learning in Large Language Models for Subjective Human Preferences and Values11 Oct

Other references · 18

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  3. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
  4. 2023Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Modelscited by 424
  5. 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 397
  6. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 306
  7. 2021Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detectioncited by 258
  8. 2018Counterfactual Fairness in Text Classification through Robustnesscited by 150
  9. 2019Assessing Social and Intersectional Biases in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 134
  10. 2023When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Taskscited by 89
  11. 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
  12. 2022Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotationcited by 67
6 more
  1. 2024Unintended Impacts of LLM Alignment on Global Representationcited by 66
  2. 2021Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectivescited by 63
  3. 2021Whose Ground Truth? Accounting for Individual and Collective Identities Underlying Dataset Annotationcited by 51
  4. 2017Like trainer, like bot? Inheritance of bias in algorithmic content moderationcited by 34
  5. 2022To Aggregate or Not? Learning with Separate Noisy Labelscited by 29
  6. 2021Ground-Truth, Whose Truth? -- Examining the Challenges with Annotating Toxic Text Datasetscited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Learning a Canonical Basis of Human Preferences from Binary Ratings
  2. 2026RLHF May Not Reflect Genuine Preferences
  3. 2024Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?
  4. 2025Detecting Prefix Bias in LLM-based Reward Models
  5. 2025When Personalization Meets Reality: A Multi-Faceted Analysis of Personalized Preference Learning
  6. 2026Thesis Proposal: Toward a Human-Centered and Perspective-Aware Framework for Reproducible ML Evaluation and AI Alignment
  7. 2026Learning Who Disagrees: Demographic Importance Weighting for Modeling Annotator Distributions with DiADEM
  8. 2025Investigating Intersectional Bias in Large Language Models using Confidence Disparities in Coreference Resolution