arXiv AI

Whose Values, Which Contexts, and What Signals? Grounding Cultural Value Alignment with Re3Culture

arXiv AI
Jun 4

Culturally Grounded Personas in Large Language Models: Characterization and Alignment with Socio-Psychological Value Frameworks

arXiv:2601. 22396v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite the growing utility of Large Language Models (LLMs) for simulating human behavior, the extent to which these synthetic personas accurately reflect world and moral value systems across different cultural conditionings remains uncertain.

By Candida M. Greco, Lucio La Cava, Andrea Tagarelli
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 9

PLURAL: A Global Dataset for Value Alignment

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 AI
Oct 5

CuBEs: Culturally-Situated Behavioral Evaluations and the Limitations of Culture-Blind LLM Judges

CuBEs introduces culturally‑situated behavioral evaluations for large language models, adding cultural context to test scenarios and assessments. The authors built a human‑labeled dataset covering 12 cultures, revealing significant cross‑cultural differences that one‑size‑fits‑all judgments miss. Evaluating 13 LLMs shows that culturally situated tests uncover varied behaviors, such as Western political bias versus non‑Western religious or colonial biases, which standard evaluations overlook.

By Hoda Ayad, Tanu Mitra, Abhishek Mukherji
arXiv AI
Sep 10

The Failure Happens Before the Drift: The Social Dynamics of Values in LLM Agent Societies

The study introduces a World Values Survey–grounded simulation framework to test whether large language model agents can faithfully represent diverse human value systems. In about 4,000 conversations with 1,200 personas across three models, more than half of the agents failed to express their assigned value profiles from the start, and only 2–7% drifted over time. The results show systematic deviations from the intended value distributions and reveal that simulated dialogues differ from human discussions in their balance of stylistic consistency and semantic diversity.

By Farah Atif, Sougata Saha, Monojit Choudhury