A simple revealed-preference model shows AI choices can be decomposed into human and machine preference components, and the degree of alignment can be recovered from choice-data; observing human choices makes recovery trivial, but even AI-only data suffices under generic menu variation.

Main Finding

The paper introduces the Luce Alignment Model (LAM): when an AI chooses on behalf of a human principal, its stochastic choices are a mixture of two Luce (multinomial logit) rules — one generated by the human utility u and one by the AI’s intrinsic utility v — mixed with weight α (compliance). Using revealed-preference techniques the author shows that:

• In the laboratory setting (both the human’s stochastic choice rule ρH and the AI’s ρAI observed), the alignment (relative shape of u and v) and the compliance parameter α are generically identified whenever ρAI violates the Luce Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) property. Closed-form expressions for α (and recovery of u and v up to scale) are derived using algebraic “instability” measures.
• In the field setting (only ρAI observed), the underlying pair of utilities is generically identified up to a label swap (u ↔ v). Compliance α is only identified up to reflection about 1/2 (α versus 1−α) unless an exogenous assumption on the side of compliance is imposed. Identification requires sufficiently many alternatives (N ≥ 4) and generic conditions.

Key Points

• Model (LAM): ρAI(x,S) = α · u(x)/Σy∈S u(y) + (1−α) · v(x)/Σy∈S v(y). Here u is the human utility, v is the AI’s intrinsic utility, α∈[0,1] is compliance.
• Special cases: α=1 (perfect compliance), v ∝ u (perfect alignment), α=0 (autonomous AI). Perfect compliance and perfect alignment produce observationally identical choice behavior, but they have different welfare/interpretation implications.
• IIA role: The Luce (single-logit) rule implies IIA. Proposition: ρAI satisfies IIA iff α∈{0,1} or v ∝ u. Thus observed IIA violations in ρAI signal partial compliance (α∈(0,1)) together with misalignment (v not proportional to u).
• Instability measures: The paper defines own-instability ∆, cross-instability Γ, and composite-instability Φ for tuples (x,y,S,T). These algebraic quantities capture deviations from IIA and are used to recover α and the two utilities in the lab setting. Composite instability detects differences in u and v.
• Identification strategy (laboratory):
• Recover u from ρH via standard Luce/IIA normalization (u recovered up to scale).
• Use IIA violations and instability measures computed from (ρAI,ρH) to obtain α in closed form.
• Given α and ρAI, recover v (up to scale).
• Identification strategy (field): Observing only ρAI yields a generic identification of the pair {u,v} (their distribution/values) but not which is the human’s or AI’s utility; similarly α cannot be distinguished from 1−α without extra assumptions. Constructive identification is provided under genericity and sufficient menu richness (≥4 alternatives).
• Relation to econometric literature: LAM = 2-point mixed multinomial logit (2-MNL / MMNL with binary support). The paper connects revealed-preference identification methods in abstract menu settings to MMNL identifiability results in product-characteristic settings, and offers a constructive alternative to prior identification results in the 2-MNL literature.

Data & Methods

• Data primitive: stochastic choice functions over menus S drawn from a finite set X (|X| = N ≥ 3). Two observational regimes:
  • Laboratory: both ρH and ρAI observed (possibly ρH elicited or synthetically provided).
  • Field: only ρAI observed.
• Structural assumptions:
  • Human (ρH) and autonomous-AI (ρA) follow Luce rules with positive utilities u,v : X → R++.
  • AI mixes the two Luce rules with fixed, menu-independent weight α.
  • Positivity (all observed choice probabilities > 0).
• Analytical approach:
  • Revealed-preference algebraic derivations exploiting the Luce representation and IIA implications.
  • Definition and algebraic manipulation of instability measures (∆, Γ, Φ) to detect and quantify departures from IIA and to isolate α.
  • Constructive identification proofs: closed-form expressions relating observables (ρAI, ρH) to the parameters; generic identification arguments (up to label symmetry) when only ρAI is observed.
  • Axiomatic characterization: behavioral conditions on (ρAI,ρH) that are necessary and sufficient for consistency with LAM (paper develops these in the laboratory section).
• The paper is primarily theoretical; no empirical application or estimation on field data is provided in the excerpt.

Implications for AI Economics

• Practical auditability of alignment: The framework gives a testable, revealed-preference method to detect and quantify misalignment and partial compliance from menu-choice data. In practice, designers, auditors, or regulators can (i) elicit human stochastic choices in lab-style experiments or (ii) analyze AI choice logs for IIA violations and use the model’s constructive formulas to infer misalignment structure.
• Value of experimental design / menu variation: Rich menu variation (especially menus with ≥3 alternatives; identification results strengthen with ≥4 alternatives for the field case) is essential. Observers should design experiments or logging that produce the necessary cross-menu comparisons to reveal IIA violations.
• Distinction between compliance and alignment matters for welfare and governance: Observationally identical choice behavior can arise from perfect compliance (AI follows human preferences) or perfect alignment (AI’s intrinsic preferences match human). These have different policy responses: compliance failures call for governance and incentive/control fixes; misalignment calls for model retraining, objective redesign, or different delegation rules.
• Limits in observational inference: When only AI choices are observed, analysts can typically recover the shape of the two utilities but cannot label which is the human’s versus the AI’s, and cannot distinguish α from 1−α without further assumptions. This creates an unavoidable ambiguity in field-only audits unless external information (e.g., known low/high compliance priors, audits that can elicit the human’s revealed preferences, or other behavioral markers) is available.
• Complement to existing alignment approaches: LAM is complementary to training-time alignment, interpretability, and benchmark testing. It provides a behavioral, choice-based diagnostic that is model-agnostic (does not require access to AI internals) and focuses on the economic welfare-relevant object — which preferences are being implemented.
• Empirical guidance: To operationalize the approach, practitioners should:
  • Collect AI choice frequencies across many menus and, if possible, elicit or simulate the human’s stochastic choices across the same menus.
  • Compute IIA tests and the paper’s instability measures; significant composite instability signals misalignment + partial compliance.
  • Use the constructive identification formulas to estimate α and recover u,v (up to scale and, in the field case, up to label swap).
• Caveats and next steps: The method relies on Luce/Logit structure for both agents and on positivity and menu richness. Real-world choice behavior may deviate from Luce or involve menu-dependent mixing weights, contextual effects, or dynamic/covert influences; extensions to richer noise structures, menu-dependent weights, or continuous coefficient distributions would be valuable next steps.