Hugging Face Trending Papers July 20, 2026

A Geometric Perspective on Stabilizing Value Conflict Resolution

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to navigate value conflicts when trained with the compressed scalar rewards of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). To address this challenge, we investigate how chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can help improve performance in this domain.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv AI

Jul 21

A Geometric Perspective on Stabilizing Value Conflict Resolution

arXiv:2607. 17946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to navigate value conflicts when trained with the compressed scalar rewards of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF).

By Saket Reddy, Andy Liu

llms reinforcement-learning benchmarks safety

arXiv Machine Learning

Jun 30

Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation

arXiv:2602. 09305v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable.

By Pei-Chi Pan, Yingbin Liang, Sen Lin

llms reinforcement-learning fine-tuning benchmarks safety

arXiv AI

Sep 1

TPvG: A Moral Decision Framework for Large Language Models from One-Shot to Sequential Feedback

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...

By Fangyuan Zhang, Dong Yu, Pengyuan Liu

llms

arXiv AI

Sep 3

Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

The study examines how the effort expended by large reasoning models (LRMs) compares to that of humans during abductive reasoning tasks. By analyzing reaction times and reasoning traces, the authors find that LRMs and humans exhibit similar patterns of effort and error types. They also demonstrate that decoding strategies allowing models to explore multiple reasoning paths further align the models’ reasoning costs with human effort.

By Henry Arthur

llms reinforcement-learning safety

arXiv AI

Jun 12

MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes

arXiv:2510. 16380v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us.

By Yu Ying Chiu, Michael S. Lee, Rachel Calcott, Brandon Handoko, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Rapha\"el Milli\`ere, Paula Rodriguez, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Ziwen Han, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Yash Maurya, Christina Q Knight, Harry R. Lloyd, Florence Bacus, Conor Downey, Mantas Mazeika, Bing Liu, Yejin Choi, Mitchell L Gordon, Sydney Levine

llms benchmarks

arXiv AI

Aug 14

MOSAIC: Unveiling the Moral, Social and Individual Dimensions of Large Language Models

arXiv:2603. 00048v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive applications including psychological support, healthcare, and high-stakes decision-making.

By Erica Coppolillo, Emilio Ferrara

llms benchmarks

One email a morning, machine-written

Related stories

A Geometric Perspective on Stabilizing Value Conflict Resolution

Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation

TPvG: A Moral Decision Framework for Large Language Models from One-Shot to Sequential Feedback

Thinking effort aligns between humans and reasoning models in abductive reasoning

MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes

MOSAIC: Unveiling the Moral, Social and Individual Dimensions of Large Language Models