Mechanism Design for Incentivizing User Feedback for Large Language Models

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Abstract Large language models require high-quality human feedback for alignment and fine-tuning, yet platforms face the fundamental challenge of incentivizing valuable contributions while screening out potentially harmful feedback from non-experts. We develop a comprehensive mechanism design framework for this quality control problem, modeling a platform that interacts with heterogeneous users who differ in their ability to provide helpful feedback. High-type users (experts) generate valuable training data with high probability, while low-type users (non-experts) are more likely to provide feedback that degrades model performance. Our theoretical analysis characterizes optimal reward-and-penalty mechanisms coupled with costly verification across different equilibrium regimes. We identify a critical boundary condition that partitions the parameter space into normal separation (where high-quality users dominate), mixed strategy, and reverse screening (where low-quality users dominate) regions. Verification serves as the primary strategic instrument, with optimal mechanisms featuring full verification under moderate costs and selective verification as expenses escalate. Importantly, optimal mechanisms exhibit a penalty-constrained structure where deterrent effects outweigh reward incentives. Counterintuitively, our analysis reveals an inverted-U relationship between population quality and platform profitability, with peak profits at moderate rather than maximal creator quality levels. This emerges because high-quality populations trigger optimally reduced verification intensity, where cost savings from selective screening are insufficient to offset foregone verification benefits. We validate our theoretical predictions through simulations using a bigram language model, confirming substantial quality differentiation between user types. The framework provides actionable insights suggesting that creator diversity can be more profitable than pursuing exclusively high-quality participants, and that verification capabilities critically determine optimal screening mechanisms in AI training environments.
Full text 13,047 characters · extracted from preprint-html · click to expand
Screening Feedback for Language Models with Costly Verification | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Screening Feedback for Language Models with Costly Verification Zhonglin Liu, Jussi Keppo, Murari Mandal, Hong Ming Tan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v2 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 2 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Abstract Language model training and alignment rely on high-quality human feedback, yet platforms must incentivize valuable contributions while limiting harmful feedback from non-experts. We study a simple screening environment in which a platform commits to a uniform incentive policy $(\rho,R,P)$---a verification rate, a reward for submitting feedback, and a penalty imposed when verified feedback is harmful---and heterogeneous users decide whether to participate. High-type users are more likely to produce helpful feedback, while low-type users are more likely to generate harmful feedback. We characterize the platform-optimal reward--penalty policy under costly verification in the robust pure-participation regimes. A key boundary condition, $\phi_H(1-\eta_H)=\phi_L(1-\eta_L)$, separates parameter regions in which incentives implement normal separation (high types participate and low types abstain) from regions exhibiting reverse screening (low types participate while high types are deterred). Verification is the primary instrument: optimal policies feature full verification at moderate costs and selective verification as verification becomes more expensive. The optimal policy is typically penalty-constrained, with rewards pinned down by participation incentives and penalties limited by enforcement and reputational costs. We further show that, under optimal verification, platform profit need not increase monotonically with population quality: profits can follow an inverted-U pattern, peaking at intermediate shares of high-type users. The mechanism is that higher population quality induces the platform to reduce verification intensity, and the resulting cost savings may be insufficient to offset foregone verification benefits. Finally, we provide an illustrative simulation using a bigram language model as a transparent calibration exercise to generate plausible magnitudes for $(\eta_H,\eta_L)$ and to visualize the model's comparative statics. Physical sciences/Engineering Physical sciences/Mathematics and computing Costly verification Incentives User feedback Quality control Platform economics Language models Full Text Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 2 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8771074","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":627669477,"identity":"590f20f8-2864-4617-9981-efa7f7c7132a","order_by":0,"name":"Zhonglin Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Hong Kong","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhonglin","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":627669478,"identity":"78cd9d77-b24f-48de-88ea-42199a99f4dd","order_by":1,"name":"Jussi Keppo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National University of Singapore","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jussi","middleName":"","lastName":"Keppo","suffix":""},{"id":627669479,"identity":"1464a988-1306-408b-8a69-71d403ba6d78","order_by":2,"name":"Murari Mandal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Murari","middleName":"","lastName":"Mandal","suffix":""},{"id":627669480,"identity":"0cae4757-de7d-420f-9480-6588d3a241bf","order_by":3,"name":"Hong Ming Tan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National University of Singapore","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hong","middleName":"Ming","lastName":"Tan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-03 05:08:40","currentVersionCode":2,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v2","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v2","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108806354,"identity":"5f3bba33-4cdd-4cec-8ff7-896d01abf179","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 15:28:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":664868,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"snarticle.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8771074/v2_covered_70a68753-b0ff-423a-93aa-f8019f6ca585.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eScreening Feedback for Language Models with Costly Verification\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Costly verification, Incentives, User feedback, Quality control, Platform economics, Language models","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v2","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v2","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eLanguage model training and alignment rely on high-quality human feedback, yet platforms must incentivize valuable contributions while limiting harmful feedback from non-experts. We study a simple screening environment in which a platform commits to a uniform incentive policy $(\\rho,R,P)$---a verification rate, a reward for submitting feedback, and a penalty imposed when verified feedback is harmful---and heterogeneous users decide whether to participate. High-type users are more likely to produce helpful feedback, while low-type users are more likely to generate harmful feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\t\t\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\t\tWe characterize the platform-optimal reward--penalty policy under costly verification in the robust pure-participation regimes. A key boundary condition, $\\phi_H(1-\\eta_H)=\\phi_L(1-\\eta_L)$, separates parameter regions in which incentives implement normal separation (high types participate and low types abstain) from regions exhibiting reverse screening (low types participate while high types are deterred). Verification is the primary instrument: optimal policies feature full verification at moderate costs and selective verification as verification becomes more expensive. The optimal policy is typically penalty-constrained, with rewards pinned down by participation incentives and penalties limited by enforcement and reputational costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\t\t\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\t\tWe further show that, under optimal verification, platform profit need not increase monotonically with population quality: profits can follow an inverted-U pattern, peaking at intermediate shares of high-type users. The mechanism is that higher population quality induces the platform to reduce verification intensity, and the resulting cost savings may be insufficient to offset foregone verification benefits. Finally, we provide an illustrative simulation using a bigram language model as a transparent calibration exercise to generate plausible magnitudes for $(\\eta_H,\\eta_L)$ and to visualize the model's comparative statics.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Screening Feedback for Language Models with Costly Verification","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":2,"date":"2026-05-06 17:35:50","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v2","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-22 10:38:00","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8771074/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"14f9d045-2360-4807-b704-01978238b19c","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 6th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":66819186,"name":"Physical sciences/Engineering"},{"id":66819187,"name":"Physical sciences/Mathematics and computing"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-22T10:38:00+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-06 17:35:50","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v2","identity":"rs-8771074","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8771074","identity":"rs-8771074","version":["v2"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: preprint-html

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00