# A Good Plan is Hard to Find: Aligning Models with Preferences is Misaligned with What Helps Users

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.18632 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.18632/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 60 of its 117 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 60)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04761/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Approach for Solving Complex Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02406/) (2022)
- [Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.02716/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02736/) (2024)
- [Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18451/) (2024)
- [On the Planning Abilities of Large Language Models : A Critical Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.15771/) (2023)
- [MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14795/) (2023)
- [Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01042/) (2018)
- [Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10811/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [Overseeing Agents Without Constant Oversight: Challenges and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16844/) (2026)
- [Plover: Steering GUI Agents through Plan-Centric Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.15193/) (2026)
- [An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05882/) (2026)
- [Language Models Don't Know What You Want: Evaluating Personalization in Deep Research Needs Real Users](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16120/) (2026)
- [Can You Make It Sound Like You? Post-Editing LLM-Generated Text for Personal Style](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.24444/) (2026)
- [VibeJam: A User Study Platform for Web Development with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29889/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

To assist users in complex tasks, LLMs generate plans: step-by-step instructions towards a goal. While alignment methods aim to ensure LLM plans are helpful, they train (RLHF) or evaluate (ChatbotArena) on what users prefer, assuming this reflects what helps them. We test this with Planorama: an interface where 126 users answer 300 multi-step questions with LLM plans. We get 4388 plan executions and 5584 comparisons to measure plan helpfulness (QA success) and user preferences on plans, and recreate the setup in agents and reward models to see if they simulate or prefer what helps users. We expose: 1) user/model preferences and agent success do not accurately predict which plans help users, so common alignment feedback can misalign with helpfulness; 2) this gap is not due to user-specific preferences, as users are similarly successful when using plans they prefer/disprefer; 3) surface-level cues like brevity and question similarity strongly link to preferences, but such biases fail to predict helpfulness. In all, we argue aligning helpful LLMs needs feedback from real user interactions, not just preferences of what looks helpful, so we discuss the plan NLP researchers can execute to solve this problem.