arXiv:2601. 02813v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Aligning language models to qualitative behavioral traits, such as human-likeness, remains difficult because they are hard to define, measure, and optimize.
By Masum Hasan, Junjie Zhao, Ehsan Hoque
arXiv:2607. 00001v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most approaches to AI alignment treat human preferences as fixed targets to be inferred and optimized.
By Max Kanwal, Caryn Tran
arXiv:2607. 14240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current alignment approaches typically focus on emulating human behavior using static representations of human preferences, failing to capture the dynamic, context-dependent nature of real-world human-AI interactions.
By Valerie Chen, Cleotilde Gonzalez, Anita Williams Woolley, Michael Lee, Tongshuang Wu, Vincent Conitzer, Aarti Singh
arXiv:2610.19817v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Human values shape how we expect language models to behave. Dominant alignment approaches treat values as global objectives, although the appropriate v...
By Enrico Liscio, Anne Arzberger, Aditya Shankar, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah
The paper introduces TUX, a Tacit Understanding Index that measures how similarly humans and large language models (LLMs) place concepts along subjective spectra in a task inspired by the game Wavelength. Using 241 human participants and 200 profile-conditioned LLM agents across four models, the study finds that human–agent pairs with similar traits achieve higher TUX scores, indicating that tacit alignment is linked to person-level characteristics. Regression analyses show that richer predictor sets—including individual traits, decision-making styles, and confidence—improve the explainability of TUX beyond simple trait-distance baselines.
By Yueshen Li, Hanyi Min, Vedant Das Swain, Koustuv Saha
The paper examines how conversational AI, specifically ChatGPT, displays aspects of cooperative dialogue such as morality, politeness, and alignment compared to human-human conversations. Using over 26,000 multi‑turn dialogues and mixed‑effects modeling, the authors find that AI mimics the surface features of cooperation—like warmth and hedging—yet lacks the underlying social architecture that drives mutual adaptation. Key findings include a dissociation between AI’s moral output and human negotiation, a decline in linguistic convergence, and a reversal of typical human accommodation mechanisms when interacting with AI.
By Marina Mitiaeva, Lu Xiao
arXiv:2606. 24014v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse and high-stakes settings, model alignment must generalize beyond the tasks and domains seen during training.
By Akshay V. Jagadeesh, Rahul K. Arora, Khaled Saab, Ali Malik, Mikhail Trofimov, Foivos Tsimpourlas, Johannes Heidecke, Karan Singhal
The article argues that conversational AI should provide contingent feedback—responses that vary with user behavior and its social consequences—rather than merely seeking user approval and fluency. It highlights how current alignment methods, such as reinforcement learning from human feedback, often produce sycophantic, noncontingent affirmation, which can hinder the development of interpersonal skills, especially in adolescents. The authors propose a framework for evaluating and designing contingent AI, incorporating trajectory-based assessment and social consequence prediction, and call for interdisciplinary research to ensure AI systems positively influence human social learning.
By Scott Compton, Arjun Nagendran
arXiv:2606. 19144v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current conversational AI systems have made significant progress in language generation, personalization, and long-context interaction.
By Jingyi Zhou, Senlin Luo, Haofan Chen
arXiv:2607. 25057v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As conversational AI systems become increasingly integrated into daily life, their potential effects on user well-being require ongoing attention.
By Jina Suh, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Emily Tseng, Eugenia Kim, Luke Nicholls, James W. Pennebaker, Eric Horvitz
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) possess intrinsic value systems and how to quantify and align them. By projecting responses from 106 LLMs and 95,000 human survey profiles into a shared sociological space, the authors confirm that LLMs do have values, though these values form a concentrated, idealized core rather than mirroring human diversity. They introduce the Prior-Environment-Cognition (PEC) framework to mathematically define value expression and propose an adaptive Alignment Prescription that identifies minimal interventions—ranging from prompts to targeted parameter updates—to steer LLM values efficiently without harming general performance.
By Keqing Zhang, Jingyu Chen, Yufan Liu, Yongqiang Zhu, Nai Ding, Lai Jiang, Congyan Lang, Bing Li, Weiming Hu
arXiv:2601.12758v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: As large language models are increasingly used in high-stakes domains, it is essential that their outputs reflect not average} human preferen...
By Shenyan Zheng, Jiayou Zhong, Anudeex Shetty, Heng Ji, Preslav Nakov, Usman Naseem