arXiv:2510. 12229v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to internalize human-like biases during finetuning, yet the mechanisms by which these biases manifest remain unclear.
arXiv:2606. 15507v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Behavioral audits of Large Language Models on moral prompts measure what the model says, not the internal computation producing it.
arXiv:2608.28610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing LLM moral evaluations typically present models with isolated moral vignettes and elicit a single-shot decision, neglecting a factor known to p...
The paper argues that aligning large language models (LLMs) at the level of latent representations—specifically by matching their internal categorization of moral concepts to human prototype-based judgments—improves safety. Current alignment methods that focus on observable responses fail to preserve fine-grained moral categorization, leaving models vulnerable to adversarial rephrasings. By optimizing representational similarity, the authors demonstrate that LLMs can maintain more robust moral categorization and exhibit better adversarial robustness across multiple benchmarks and model sizes.
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
arXiv:2608. 12368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs).
The paper argues that AI alignment depends on a system’s ability to exhibit a coherent moral policy—stable, monotonic, decisive, and Pareto‑viable—rather than on any specific moral standard. The authors test nine large language models across varied moral scenarios and find that none maintain consistent verdicts, with surface‑form changes causing up to 99% shifts in outcomes. This indicates that current LLM agents lack the structural moral competence required for meaningful alignment.
arXiv:2605. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased.
The paper introduces CHARM, a lightweight fine‑tuned language model framework for detecting moral foundations in text. CHARM combines MAC cross‑attention, rationale alignment, and hate‑speech modulation to operationalize distinct psychological constructs, achieving up to 15.3% higher AUC in‑domain and outperforming supervised baselines on all out‑of‑domain datasets. The authors demonstrate CHARM’s scalability by applying it to large‑scale COVID‑19 Twitter data, revealing a strong link between moral value alignment and online endorsement behavior.
arXiv:2603.16017v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in morally sensitive decision-making, yet how they organize ethical frameworks across r...
Emergent misalignment (EM) is the phenomenon where fine-tuning a language model on a narrow task leads to harmful behavior in unrelated domains. A leading mechanistic account attributes EM to persona features: latent directions acquired during pre-training that misaligned fine-tuning amplifies.
The paper introduces AIMES, a framework for adaptive multi-value activation steering in large language models. AIMES builds layer‑specific bipolar directions for moral‑foundation values and uses intermediate‑layer vocabulary readouts as online observers to guide a controller that adjusts intervention strengths at each decoding step. Experiments across instruction‑tuned model families show that AIMES achieves depth‑dependent advantages over fixed joint steering and prompt‑based steering, with smaller activation‑space interventions and comparable response quality.