arXiv:2607. 10871v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contemplative traditions have long guided ethical behavior and prosocial interaction, and recent work suggests that contemplative principles (e.
arXiv:2609.22256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective workplace negotiation requires balancing multiple objectives, including achieving task goals, preserving professional relationships, and reso...
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
arXiv:2609.08515v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into human society, aligning them with pluralistic social values has become a critical pr...
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.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) assess politeness in ways that match human judgments. Using two English datasets—one with continuous ratings and another with three‑way categorical labels—the authors compare seven LLMs to human annotations. They find that models agree more with each other than with humans, show systematic neutral bias in categorical predictions, and that alignment varies with explicit linguistic cues and rapport‑building strategies.
ExpertIVS is a framework that uses 14 sociological expert agents to interpret World Values Survey responses, reconstructing individual value systems in a coherent, internally consistent manner rather than simply concatenating survey answers. It introduces a multi‑agent debate mechanism to assess LLM alignment with these value profiles during dynamic interactions. Experiments on 480 individuals from 12 countries show a 90.78% value restoration fidelity and a 5.3% improvement in value generalization over baseline methods, while also demonstrating strong personality discriminability and behavioral consistency.
SocialArena is a benchmark designed to evaluate the social intelligence of large language models (LLMs) across three dimensions: role‑playing ability, mental state reasoning, and behavioral reasoning. It introduces a role‑playing dialogue paradigm with explicit character thinking to assess these capabilities in realistic human interactions, and a U‑TRIMF framework to synthesize diverse social contexts. The evaluation relies on a human‑annotated arena‑style protocol, supported by a $132.4K investment in recruiting and training annotators who compare model responses and provide preference labels and critiques.
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) assess politeness in ways that match human judgments. Using two English datasets—one with continuous ratings and another with three‑way categorical labels—the authors find that LLMs agree more with each other than with humans. They observe that model–human alignment depends on explicit linguistic cues, while misaligned cases often involve rapport‑building strategies. Additionally, models tend to overproduce Neutral labels and underpredict Impolite labels, a pattern that persists even when expert consensus is used as a reference.
arXiv:2608. 12368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2608.29209v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this paper, we examine how well AI-generated multimodal stories align with the lived practices, relationships, language, values, and visual expectat...
With the wide application of large language models (LLMs) in real-world scenarios, the value implication of their outputs is crucial. However, existing evaluation benchmarks suffer from insufficient coverage of value dilemmas in daily scenarios involving multiple value conflicts and simplistic evaluation formalisms that fail to assess LLMs' value alignment.