Aligning to Illusions: Choice Blindness in Human and AI Feedback
Wenbin Wu · 2026 · arXiv
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) assumes annotator preferences reflect stable internal states. We challenge this through three experiments spanning the preference pipeline. In a human choice blindness study, 91% of surreptitiously swapped preferences go undetected, extending choice blindness to third-person evaluative comparison of unfamiliar text. Testing fifteen LLM judges as potential replacements, we find detection relies on shallow text matching rather than genuine self-monitoring: removing prior reasoning from context causes blindness to surge from near-zero to over 50%,
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Negative / Null Result ReportDefining and detecting quantum speedup
Negative / Null Result ReportService robots in hotels: understanding the service quality perceptions of human-robot interaction
Negative / Null Result ReportBoosting methods for multi-class imbalanced data classification: an experimental review
Negative / Null Result ReportFINANCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH: A META‐ANALYSIS
Negative / Null Result ReportThe impact of site-specific digital histology signatures on deep learning model accuracy and bias
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: arXiv