Thurstone was a pioneer of "psychometrics"—a field built on the premise that mental processes, which we cannot see, can nevertheless be measured and quantified. His 1927 paper laid the groundwork for what are now called random utility models, which provide a mathematical framework for describing human preferences—information that can be relied on, in turn, to make predictions about various hypothetical situations.
Random utility models (RUMs) are so named because they assess the "utility," or benefit, that can be obtained from a given choice—such as deciding which book to read first among the stack of novels you brought back from the library.
"These models are inherently random," explains Gabriele Farina, an assistant professor in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and principal investigator at the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), "because people are different. Everyone has their own preferences, and even those preferences can vary from time to time." For example, someone who normally picks coffee over tea in the morning and prefers tea after dinner may, on occasion, mix up that order entirely.
RUMs, to be sure, are frequently used within government and industry in situations of far greater consequence than the selection of a hot (or iced) beverage. The models routinely facilitate predictions regarding what people will elect to do in so-called counterfactual ("what-if") scenarios: How will they get to work or school if a major thoroughfare is shut down for construction? What routes and modes of transport will they take? Or, if a city suddenly receives a windfall of $20 million, how should those funds be disbursed to maximize the common good?
Given that RUMs have been with us for almost 100 years, growing in sophistication over time, one might imagine that, at this stage, there would be little room for improvement. That, however, is not the case.
A century-old model gets revisited
A paper presented in April at the International Conference on Learning Representations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, uncovered basic facts that show there is much more to be gleaned from these models than had traditionally been supposed.
The paper was authored by Yeshwanth Cherapanamjeri, a former MIT postdoc now based at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore; Farina, also core faculty in MIT's Operations Research Center (ORC); Constantinos Daskalakis, the Avanessians Professor of Computer Science at MIT and a member of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory; and Sobhan Mohammadpour, an MIT Ph.D. student in computer science based at LIDS and EECS.
The group's findings stem, in part, from a deficiency in the way RUMs are commonly estimated in practice, which has persisted since the days of Thurstone. The data on which the models are estimated have been largely drawn from so-called pairwise comparisons: In a choice between items A and B—whether it pertains to movies on Netflix, competing products on Amazon.com, news stories posted on Google and so forth—which one would you pick?
One reason this approach has been so pervasive, Daskalakis explains, is that "assigning a precise numerical score, such as 4.37, to the benefit you get from a single item is very hard. Whereas comparing two things, and deciding which one you like better, is cognitively much easier to do." But therein lies the rub, he adds. "With this way of assessing people's preferences, looking at just two things at a time, it is impossible to find correlations between the numerous choices."
What pairwise choices miss
The standard way of applying RUMs assumes that the utilities derived from A and B are independent, but they may, in fact, be linked, and that would be important to know. If someone campaigning for elective office finds out that a potential voter favors gun control, for instance, there is a reasonable chance that same person also favors government-sponsored child care. Similarly, a fan of independent movies might also be partial to foreign films, but less enthusiastic about Hollywood action blockbusters.
"If a digital platform turns a blind eye to the existence of such correlations, it will not be able to estimate preferences very accurately," Daskalakis notes. "And if Netflix regularly shows you an assortment of movies you don't care about, you might sign off and cancel your subscription."
The MIT team proved that it is impossible to get information about correlations from two-way comparisons alone. Correlations can be discerned, however, when large numbers of people rate three alternatives in their order of preference. The same information can also be obtained from a combination of best-of-three and best-of-two choices.
In practice, Mohammadpour explains, "you would get a bunch of people to rank three items. You could then utilize the method we developed for merging those individual results into one big model that can provide us with the big picture."
Three-item rankings reveal more
Their research effort, according to Farina, is focused on the computational side of RUMs, devising algorithms that can extract preference information and figuring out how much data is needed to do so or, equivalently, how many experiments need to be run. The good news, he says, is that efficient algorithms are indeed possible for this purpose. The requisite number of experiments does not grow exponentially with the number of items in the catalog or database under review.
"This paper provides a crucial breakthrough," comments Emma Frejinger, a computer scientist at the University of Montreal. "It mathematically proves why traditional data collection fails and demonstrates that simply asking users for their best-of-three [choices] unlocks the ability to accurately train these powerful models. This finding provides a highly practical roadmap for collecting better data to drive more accurate optimizations."
"Building utility models is going to remain a very active area," Daskalakis insists. "Just as RUMs have been critical to the internet economy since the late 1990s, they are, and will remain, critical to the alignment of AI models going forward."
More importantly, he adds, "RUMs play a central role in the commercial viability and usefulness of large language models [LLMs]." During the training period, people are typically asked to rank the various candidate outputs of these LLMs, from which the models can gain a better sense of the kind of text—in terms of tone, style and content—that is preferred.
Given that we're constantly "besieged with a vast sea of options in so many different domains," Daskalakis says, "you cannot possibly ask people to communicate all their personal preferences for all possible scenarios. So what you can do instead is build a model that predicts what people think about the different possible outcomes. And you have to keep improving and updating your model in an iterative process until, hopefully, you can make good predictions."
More information
Paper: Learning Correlated Reward Models: Statistical Barriers and Opportunities
Who's behind this story?
Lisa Lock
BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021.
Full profile →
Robert Egan
Bachelor's in mathematical biology, Master's in creative writing. Well-traveled with unique perspectives on science and language.
Full profile →
Citation:
When it comes to predicting people's preferences, it pays to consider 'the power of three' (2026, August 10)
retrieved 10 August 2026
from https://phys.org/news/2026-08-people-pays-power.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
%!s()
