The Alignment Game: A Theory of Long-Horizon Alignment Through Recursive Curation
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
In self-consuming generative models that train on their own outputs, alignment with user preferences becomes a recursive rather than one-time process. We provide the first formal foundation for analyzing the long-term effects of such recursive retraining on alignment. Under a two-stage curation mechanism based on the Bradley-Terry (BT) model, we model alignment as an interaction between two factions: the Model Owner, who filters which outputs should be learned by the model, and the Public User, who determines which outputs are ultimately shared and retained through interactions with the model. Our analysis reveals three structural convergence regimes depending on the degree of preference alignment: consensus collapse, compromise on shared optima, and asymmetric refinement. We prove a fundamental impossibility theorem: no recursive BT-based curation mechanism can simultaneously preserve diversity, ensure symmetric influence, and eliminate dependence on initialization. Framing the process as dynamic social choice, we show that alignment is not a static goal but an evolving equilibrium, shaped both by power asymmetries and path dependence.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2025.
Builds on
11 of 17 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2024On the Algorithmic Bias of Aligning Large Language Models with RLHF: Preference Collapse and Matching Regularization26 May
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback4 Mar
Other references · 9
- 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 343
- 2024Social Choice Should Guide AI Alignment in Dealing with Diverse Human Feedbackcited by 95
- 2024Model Collapse Demystified: The Case of Regressioncited by 80
- 2024Axioms for AI Alignment from Human Feedbackcited by 50
- 2024Rethinking Bradley-Terry Models in Preference-Based Reward Modeling: Foundations, Theory, and Alternativescited by 48
- 2024Self-Consuming Generative Models with Curated Data Provably Optimize Human Preferencescited by 35
- 2024Beyond Bradley-Terry Models: A General Preference Model for Language Model Alignmentcited by 24
- 2018Impossibility and Uncertainty Theorems in AI Value Alignment (or why your AGI should not have a utility function)cited by 22
- 2025A Probabilistic Perspective on Model Collapsecited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When and How Human Curation Backfires: Preference Alignment under Multi-Model Self-Consuming Loop
- 2025Direct Alignment with Heterogeneous Preferences
- 2024Understanding the Learning Dynamics of Alignment with Human Feedback
- 2026How Sampling Shapes LLM Alignment: From One-Shot Optima to Iterative Dynamics
- 2025Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?
- 2025Why Alignment Must Precede Distillation: A Minimal Working Explanation
- 2024On the Essence and Prospect: An Investigation of Alignment Approaches for Big Models
- 2026Reward Shaping for (Inference-Time) Alignment: A Stackelberg Game Perspective