# Designing for Disagreement: Front-End Guardrails for Assistance Allocation in LLM-Enabled Robots

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16537 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16537/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.01691/) (2022)
- [Assessing Cross-Cultural Alignment between ChatGPT and Human Societies: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17466/) (2023)
- [Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.06668/) (2019)
- [Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.09604/) (2020)
- [Multilingual != Multicultural: Evaluating Gaps Between Multilingual Capabilities and Cultural Alignment in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.16534/) (2025)
- [Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02479/) (2020)
- [LLM-Driven Robots Risk Enacting Discrimination, Violence, and Unlawful Actions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08824/) (2024)
- [Developing Social Robots with Empathetic Non-Verbal Cues Using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.16529/) (2023)
- [A Systematic Literature Review of Human-Centered, Ethical, and Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.05284/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-enabled robots prioritizing scarce assistance in social settings face pluralistic values and LLM behavioral variability: reasonable people can disagree about who is helped first, while LLM-mediated interaction policies vary across prompts, contexts, and groups in ways that are difficult to anticipate or verify at contact point. Yet user-facing guardrails for real-time, multi-user assistance allocation remain under-specified. We propose bounded calibration with contestability, a procedural front-end pattern that (i) constrains prioritization to a governance-approved menu of admissible modes, (ii) keeps the active mode legible in interaction-relevant terms at the point of deferral, and (iii) provides an outcome-specific contest pathway without renegotiating the global rule. Treating pluralism and LLM uncertainty as standing conditions, the pattern avoids both silent defaults that hide implicit value skews and wide-open user-configurable "value settings" that shift burden under time pressure. We illustrate the pattern with a public-concourse robot vignette and outline an evaluation agenda centered on legibility, procedural legitimacy, and actionability, including risks of automation bias and uneven usability of contest channels.