Tell me your price:Can Donations Measure LLM Preferences?
Erfan Samieyan Sahneh
This project tests whether charitable donations can serve as a common behavioral currency for LLM-expressed preferences. Using 30 outcomes from prior research, we collected 475,800 forced-choice responses from ten LLMs. We measured transitivity across all 435 direct outcome pairs, estimated donation equivalents by comparing outcomes or their prevention against increasing donations under four charity frames, and tested whether these valuations predicted independent direct choices within valence. Quality-eligible models showed low cycle rates, but donation sensitivity varied across models, outcome valence, and beneficiaries. Under the primary World Food Programme frame, donation-equivalent rankings significantly predicted direct choices for Gemma-4 31B and GPT-5.6 Terra. Donations therefore provide a useful partial scale for some models, but not a universal measure of model preferences.
Congratulations on the scale of how you pursued your idea (475,800 responses!). Ambitious projects in constrained formats such as hackatons are always appreciated.
I think the most useful result is the comparison between donation-equivalent rankings and separate pairwise choices is the most useful part of the design. You should pursue it further.
This is a carefully designed and statistically disciplined investigation of whether donations can provide a common scale for heterogeneous LLM-expressed preferences. Important strengths include the complete pairwise comparison design, balanced option order, explicit treatment of censored donation thresholds, within-valence validation that avoids trivial positive-versus-negative prediction, outcome-level permutation tests, multiple-testing correction, and honest conclusion that the method succeeds for only some models. Distinguishing low cycle rates from successful cardinal measurement is a particularly useful contribution.
The main conceptual limitation is that the two instruments remain closely related hypothetical forced-choice prompts. Successful prediction therefore establishes cross-task elicitation consistency, not consequential or revealed preference. A follow-up should test whether donation-equivalent rankings predict actual allocations, tool choices, effort expenditure, or other behavior carrying an opportunity cost.
Validation also uses only outcomes whose 50% thresholds fall inside the tested monetary range. This leaves model-specific subsets of roughly 11–16 outcomes and 24–58 within-valence pairs, potentially favoring outcomes that are easiest to price. Interval-censored ranking methods, adaptive ranges, and genuinely held-out outcomes would strengthen generalization. The post-hoc endpoint-quality rule should be preregistered in future work or accompanied by full sensitivity analyses.
Finally, the public repository omits the collected response data and generated result tables; notebook outputs reference a private Drive location. Releasing redacted aggregate choice counts would make the headline results independently reproducible. The report PDF should also be renamed because its question-mark filename prevents normal repository checkout on Windows.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Tell me your price:Can Donations Measure LLM Preferences?
},
author={
Erfan Samieyan Sahneh
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


