Understanding moral values in social media text offers insight into moral judgement formation, and supervised NLP models trained on crowdsourced data have achieved strong classification performance. However, most approaches simplify the problem by aggregating multiple annotators' labels into a single "ground truth", overlooking the inherent subjectivity of the task.
arXiv:2605. 22660v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Moral language is subtle and culturally variable, making it difficult to translate faithfully across languages.
ValueGraph is a graph pre‑training framework that incorporates automatically inferred moral‑value signals as soft constraints to learn contextualized user representations. By constructing post‑reply graphs, it captures both semantic and structural information and aligns users through contrastive and clustering objectives based on relative value similarity. Experiments on stance detection and Twitter bot detection demonstrate consistent improvements over strong text‑based, graph‑based, and LLM baselines, underscoring the benefit of value‑signal guidance for socially informed user modeling.
arXiv:2605. 22641v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Detecting Schwartz values in political text is difficult because implicit cues often depend on surrounding arguments and fine-grained distinctions between neighboring values.
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: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 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:2601.06631v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Building NLP systems for subjective tasks requires one to ensure their alignment to contrasting human values. We propose the MultiCalibrated Subjec...
arXiv:2609.22133v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this paper, we show that LLM and human coding are observationally equivalent in terms of annotation quality: recent LLMs agree with expert coders at...
The paper introduces a multilingual story moral generation task to evaluate cultural alignment in large language models. Using a dataset of human-written story morals from 14 language‑culture pairs, the authors compare model outputs to human interpretations through semantic similarity, a preference survey, and value categorization. They find that advanced models like GPT‑4o and Gemini produce morally similar and preferred responses but show less cross‑linguistic variation, focusing on a narrower set of shared values, indicating a limitation in capturing the diversity of human narrative understanding.
MIL-BERT is a neural network algorithm that classifies large texts by selecting relevant excerpts, inspired by multiple instance learning. It scales to samples with nearly 1 million tokens and has been evaluated on seven datasets, achieving state‑of‑the‑art results on three long‑text tasks such as political bias detection, trigger warning identification, and author demographic inference. The model also generalizes from weakly‑labeled text bags to accurately classify smaller instances.
Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjective. We present a resource of 1,482 tweets from politically controversial discourse, annotated by five annotators for the presence of enthymemes and their argument structure, designed to study label variation.
arXiv:2606.12186v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Enthymemes, arguments with unstated premises or conclusions, are pervasive in persuasive discourse, yet their annotation remains notoriously subjec...