Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons
Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision
Record details
Published: 2 July 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Safety & alignment · Finance, VC & PE
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons
arXiv cs.CY · 20 July 2026
Can Dialects Be Steered Like Languages? Sparse Neurons and Distributed Directions in Arabic LLMs
HuggingFace Daily Papers · 3 July 2026
Harnessing Textual Refusal Directions for Multimodal Safety
arXiv · 30 June 2026
User identity conditions moral wrongness ratings in non-reasoning large language models
arXiv · 8 July 2026
DiaLLM: An Investigation into the Robustness-Generation Gap in English Dialect Adaptation
arXiv · 8 July 2026
Low-Agreeableness Persona Conditioning for Safe LLM Fine-Tuning
arXiv · 26 June 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (2 July 2026), “Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons,” evidence record 304, https://ethics.ai/record/304 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.