# Multi-Stakeholder LLM Alignment: Decomposing Estimation from Aggregation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.26878 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26878/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 22 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Personalized Soups: Personalized Large Language Model Alignment via Post-hoc Parameter Merging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11564/) (2023)
- [Rewarded soups: towards Pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04488/) (2023)
- [HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08673/) (2024)
- [Rewards-in-Context: Multi-objective Alignment of Foundation Models with Dynamic Preference Adjustment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10207/) (2024)
- [Arithmetic Control of LLMs for Diverse User Preferences: Directional Preference Alignment with Multi-Objective Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18571/) (2024)
- [Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14016/) (2024)
- [SteerLM: Attribute Conditioned SFT as an (User-Steerable) Alternative to RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05344/) (2023)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.27106/) (2025)
- [Your Group-Relative Advantage Is Biased](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.08521/) (2026)
- [MO-GRPO: Mitigating Reward Hacking of Group Relative Policy Optimization on Multi-Objective Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.22047/) (2025)
- [Noise-corrected GRPO: From Noisy Rewards to Unbiased Gradients](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18924/) (2025)
- [GroupTravelBench: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Multi-Person Travel Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25200/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-stakeholder tasks require one output to satisfy users with conflicting preferences. Holistic LLM judges conflate utility estimation and utility aggregation, yielding unstable implicit weights. We show empirically and theoretically that this aggregation-specific weighting noise can create large score shifts when stakeholder satisfaction is dispersed; in our experiments, these weight-induced shifts also increase with stakeholder count. We propose textscDecompR: counterfactual-calibrated weights are fixed from query structure before candidate scoring, while per-role utilities are estimated independently, removing candidate-dependent weight drift and reducing estimation noise.