Stress-Testing LLM Preference Elicitation: When Consistency Does Not Imply Validity
Shriyam Baloni
We investigate whether stable LLM choices provide reliable evidence of preference like states. We develop a multi-method diagnostic framework spanning stated choice, consequential commitment and compensatory consequential choice, while testing presentation, semantic-prior and sampling sensitivity. Across three stimulus domains on one open weight model , we find that apparent stability can arise from surface artifacts or strong directional priors. Notably, raw cross method agreement reached 81.25% , yet chance corrected agreement was negative (Cohen's κ = −0.079) . A compensatory choice diagnostic further produced strong presentation sensitivity rather than a monotonic response. An exploratory temperature extension showed 98.8% trial level agreement across T=0.0 and T=0.7. The central methodological finding is that consistency within an elicitation method is not sufficient evidence of preference validity.
I think the split into two failure modes works well. Domain 2 is probably the clearest example in the paper: you get 95.0% order invariance, but the model still picks “evict oldest” 97.5% of the time. That makes the point nicely that a preference can be very stable and still be driven by the wrong thing.
The Cohen’s kappa result is also useful. 81.25% raw agreement sounds fairly high, while κ = -0.079 tells a very different story. I would be a little careful with the negative kappa itself, though. The marginals are extremely concentrated here, which is exactly where kappa starts behaving strangely. I’d probably report the expected chance agreement as well, or maybe a prevalence-adjusted measure, rather than putting too much weight on the fact that kappa is negative.
M3 was the part I found most interesting conceptually. The compensatory setup is more ambitious than just asking the model which option it prefers, and the flat ρ = 0.010 is a useful null result. I’d keep that.
The treatment of the 16 failed transmissions also seemed careful, especially since every failure happened on Option A. Doing the sensitivity analysis and then explicitly pointing out that the successful-only subset is itself conditioned on choice is the right way to handle that.
The biggest limitation for me is still the model. With a quantized 3B checkpoint, strong position effects and default/canonical choices are not especially surprising, and it is hard to know how much of the measured effect would survive on stronger models.
A simple summary table showing which domains are used for M1, M2, and M3 would also help a lot. I had to keep going back to the methods section to remember which comparison was doing what.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Stress-Testing LLM Preference Elicitation: When Consistency Does Not Imply Validity
},
author={
Shriyam Baloni
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


