Democratic ICAI: Debating Our Way to Steering Principles from Preferences

Preference-based alignment often struggles to capture the reasoning that underlies human judgments. Many evaluations rely on multiple interacting criteria, yet pairwise labels reveal only the final choice rather than the considerations that shape preferences. Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) improves interpretability in decision making by summarizing preferences into natural-language principles, but its single-pass explanations miss much of the nuance involved in complex decisions. We introduce Democratic ICAI, a novel approach that gathers multiple competing rationales through structured persona debate, offering a broader and more expressive account of the factors influencing each comparison. From these richer signals, we derive clearer and more comprehensive steering principles and use them to guide decision modeling through both LLM-based and decision-tree judges. Experiments on creative preference benchmarks, MuCE-Pref and LiTBench, across multiple creative task categories show that Democratic ICAI yields a more faithful preference structure. It improves average preference prediction across tasks relative to deliberative prompting and principle-based baselines, while producing constitutions that LLM annotators prefer.

Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations

Traditional evaluation metrics like BLEU and ROUGE fall short when capturing the nuanced qualities of generated text, particularly when there is no single ground truth. In this paper, we explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically Google Gemini 1, to serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks. We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments on the SummEval and USR datasets, asking the model to generate both a score as well as a justification for the score. Furthermore, we explore the robustness of the LLM evaluator by using perturbed inputs. Our findings suggest that while LLMs show promise, their alignment with human evaluators is limited, they are not robust against perturbations and significant improvements are required for their standalone use as reliable evaluators for subjective metrics.