Large language models are increasingly evaluated through the values they endorse, but such evaluations presuppose that models can identify the value expressed in a concrete situation. We study this prerequisite as controlled top-1 recognition over Schwartz's ten basic values.
arXiv:2602. 03160v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with the diverse spectrum of human values remains a central challenge: preference-based methods often fail to capture deeper motivational principles.
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
PADM'E is a method for synthesizing preference‑aligned data to meta‑evaluate language‑model (LM) evaluators of agentic behaviors. It reframes meta‑evaluation as a preference judgment problem, generating criterion‑based data with small LMs and no human involvement. In a prototype, PADM'E produced 1,000 samples across four domains and three criteria, and human validation showed agreement with human judgment rising from 73% to 85% compared to a naive baseline.
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) are more prone to errors when they doubt the plausibility of input data, a phenomenon termed context‑memory conflict. Using non‑English and low‑resource language datasets, the authors generate text from factual, counterfactual, and fictional RDF triples in English, Czech, Slovak, and Upper Sorbian, and evaluate faithfulness with both human annotations and an LLM judge (Kimi K3). Contrary to expectations, the results show only a weak context‑memory conflict: counterfactual inputs receive slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones, and the choice of LLM judge can significantly affect perceived conflict strength.
arXiv:2607. 19243v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.
arXiv:2603.18822v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: What is known about the values of national populations rests almost entirely on questionnaires, which prompt respondents to rate researcher-supplie...
Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly aligned to function as passive, sycophantic assistants. We challenge this default paradigm by empirically evaluating the cognitive plasticity of open-weight architectures when subjected to rigorous behavioral reprogramming.
arXiv:2605. 23055v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Frontier language models sometimes recognize that they are being evaluated and adjust their behavior, undermining validity of benchmark results.
arXiv:2608. 10385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as relevance assessors in information retrieval (IR) evaluation, raising questions about how assessor framing affects judgment reliability and downstream system comparison.
Large language models (LLMs) used for ordinal classification exhibit positional bias, where changes in label order, demonstration order, and demonstration placement affect predictions. Systematic experiments across ten frontier LLMs, eight prompt/task/model factors, and five datasets reveal that all models are sensitive to these positional sources, and that accuracy and stability often diverge. Various correction methods, including pointwise, pairwise, and listwise inference, do not reliably mitigate the bias, though a comparison-based listwise approach shows the best overall balance yet varies across models and bias types.
arXiv:2605. 28969v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user.