# LLM-Derived Preference Judgments Are Not Self-Consistent

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.17644 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.17644/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [NL4Opt Competition: Formulating Optimization Problems Based on Their Natural Language Descriptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08233/) (2023)
- [Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.27106/) (2025)
- [Are We on the Right Way to Assessing LLM-as-a-Judge?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.16041/) (2025)
- [Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Preference Consistency in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02205/) (2024)
- [Would a Large Language Model Pay Extra for a View? Inferring Willingness to Pay from Subjective Choices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.09802/) (2026)
- [LISTEN to Your Preferences: An LLM Framework for Multi-Objective Selection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.25799/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Agents increasingly interpret a person's natural-language preferences by querying an LLM for numerical preference judgments, e.g., by asking how much the person would be willing to pay for an item. A growing body of work estimates a utility function from these judgments and then chooses actions based on their estimated utility. This pipeline assumes the judgments are approximately self-consistent: that a single utility function can reproduce them. But are they? To study this question, we measure the self-consistency of cardinal LLM preference judgments. For example, the difference in stated willingness-to-pay between two items should match the stated payment that makes a person indifferent to exchanging them. We develop statistical tests and interpretable measures of how far observed responses depart from the best-fitting self-consistent utility function. Experiments with flight, apartment, and hotel examples across six LLMs reveal large persistent inconsistencies. This suggests that LLM-derived preference judgments cannot be faithfully summarized by a single utility function.