Democratic Preference Alignment via Sortition-Weighted RLHF
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → LLM preference optimization methods
Abstract (arXiv)
Whose values should AI systems learn? Preference based alignment methods like RLHF derive their training signal from human raters, yet these rater pools are typically convenience samples that systematically over represent some demographics and under represent others. We introduce Democratic Preference Optimization, or DemPO, a framework that applies algorithmic sortition, the same mechanism used to construct citizen assemblies, to preference based fine tuning. DemPO offers two training schemes. Hard Panel trains exclusively on preferences from a quota satisfying mini public sampled via sortition. Soft Panel retains all data but reweights each rater by their inclusion probability under the sortition lottery. We prove that Soft Panel weighting recovers the expected Hard Panel objective in closed form. Using a public preference dataset that pairs human judgments with rater demographics and a seventy five clause constitution independently elicited from a representative United States panel, we evaluate Llama models from one billion to eight billion parameters fine tuned under each scheme. Across six aggregation methods, the Hard Panel consistently ranks first and the Soft Panel consistently outperforms the unweighted baseline, with effect sizes growing as model capacity increases. These results demonstrate that enforcing demographic representativeness at the preference collection stage, rather than post hoc correction, yields models whose behavior better reflects values elicited from representative publics.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 14 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Feb 2026.
Builds on
14 of 28 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Diverse Preference Optimization30 Jan
Other references · 13
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
- 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 443
- 2016Safe and Efficient Off-Policy Reinforcement Learningcited by 260
- 2024Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 249
- 2022Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferencescited by 189
- 2024The PRISM Alignment Dataset: What Participatory, Representative and Individualised Human Feedback Reveals About the Subjective and Multicultural Alignment of Large Language Modelscited by 136
- 2024Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Inputcited by 120
- 2024Social Choice Should Guide AI Alignment in Dealing with Diverse Human Feedbackcited by 95
1 more
- 2025AI Alignment at Your Discretioncited by 20
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Democratic ICAI: Debating Our Way to Steering Principles from Preferences
- 2025Learning a Canonical Basis of Human Preferences from Binary Ratings
- 2025Beyond RLHF and NLHF: Population-Proportional Alignment under an Axiomatic Framework
- 2025Robust Preference Alignment via Directional Neighborhood Consensus
- 2024Direct Preference Optimization With Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity: The Necessity of Ternary Preferences
- 2025Direct Preference Optimization with Unobserved Preference Heterogeneity: The Necessity of Ternary Preferences
- 2025HPS: Hard Preference Sampling for Human Preference Alignment
- 2025Distortion of AI Alignment: Does Preference Optimization Optimize for Preferences?