arXiv AI By Yao Liang, Dongcheng Zhao, Feifei Zhao, Guobin Shen, Yuwei Wang, Dongqi Liang, Yi Zeng

DiverValue-Bench: A Benchmark and Fine-Tuning Framework for Aligning Large Language Models with Diverse Human Values

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2509. 08022v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Aligning large language models (LLMs) with diverse human values is essential for safe and effective deployment, yet existing benchmarks often overlook cultural and demographic variation.

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 arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 9

PLURAL: A Global Dataset for Value Alignment

Large language models (LLMs) are used worldwide, yet disproportionately reflect Western values, limiting their ability to represent diverse value systems. We introduce PLURAL, a large-scale, value-focused preference dataset grounded in the Integrated Values Survey (IVS), a nationally representative survey spanning 92 countries.

arXiv AI
5d ago

An Empirical Study on Preference Tuning Generalization and Diversity Under Domain Shift

The paper investigates how preference tuning—optimizing language models with explicit preference signals—behaves when applied to new domains. It systematically compares five alignment objectives and several adaptation strategies, such as target‑domain supervised fine‑tuning and pseudo‑labeling, across summarization, question‑answering helpfulness, and safety tasks. Results show that while pseudo‑labeling reduces domain‑shift degradation, it also causes mode collapse, highlighting a trade‑off between generalization and diversity.

By Constantinos Karouzos, Xingwei Tan, Nikolaos Aletras
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 22

D2VBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models with Value Dilemmas in Daily Scenarios

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.