Flexible Agent Alignment with Goal Inference from Open-Ended Dialog

Rachel Ma, Jingyi Qu, Andreea Bobu, Dylan Hadfield-Menell · Aug 20, 2025 · Citations: 0

Coding Pairwise Preference

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

We introduce Open-Universe Assistance Games (OU-AGs), a formal framework extending assistance games to LLM-based agents. Effective assistance requires reasoning over human preferences that are unbounded, underspecified, and evolving. Current LLM agents struggle in multi-turn interactions and with maintaining accurate models of user intent in collaborative settings. Existing assistance game formulations assume fixed, predefined preferences, an assumption that breaks down in open-ended dialogue where goals are revised incrementally and expressed in natural language. Grounded in cognitive science accounts of preference construction, we represent human preferences as a dynamically updated distribution over discrete natural-language goals. To operationalize OU-AGs, we introduce GOOD (GOals from Open-ended Dialogue), a data-efficient online method that extracts and ranks candidate goals during interaction, using LLM-simulated users to perform probabilistic inference over goal hypotheses. This allows for interpretable, uncertainty-aware preference representations without large offline datasets. We evaluate GOOD across three text-based domains: grocery shopping, household robotics (AI2-THOR), and coding. Compared to baselines without explicit goal tracking, GOOD produces semantically coherent goal representations and improves alignment with user intent across domains.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.