arXiv:2606. 10569v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard RLHF pipelines often reduce heterogeneous human judgments into a single scalar reward target.
Large language models (LLMs) are used worldwide, yet disproportionately reflect Western values, limiting their ability to represent diverse value systems. We introduce PLURAL, a large-scale, value-focused preference dataset grounded in the Integrated Values Survey (IVS), a nationally representative survey spanning 92 countries.
arXiv:2607. 08034v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are used worldwide, yet disproportionately reflect Western values, limiting their ability to represent diverse value systems.
arXiv:2602. 03160v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with the diverse spectrum of human values remains a central challenge: preference-based methods often fail to capture deeper motivational principles.
arXiv:2603. 16827v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Culture shapes reasoning, values, prioritization, and strategic decision-making, yet large language models (LLMs) often exhibit cultural biases that misalign with target populations.
arXiv:2607. 20515v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is critical for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences.
arXiv:2604. 07343v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values.
arXiv:2606. 05384v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-as-judge evaluation is widely used in benchmarking pipelines, where model outputs are compared and ranked using automated evaluators.
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
arXiv:2607. 02672v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.
arXiv:2606. 03165v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The language used by digital chat assistants such as ChatGPT can diverge from human expectations (misalignment).
Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features.
Large language models are increasingly evaluated through the values they endorse, but such evaluations presuppose that models can identify the value expressed in a concrete situation. We study this prerequisite as controlled top-1 recognition over Schwartz's ten basic values.