arXiv Computation and Language
Naturalistic measure of social norms alignment
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jul 14
Toward Contemplative LLM: A Modular Framework for Evaluating and Enhancing LLM Alignment in Mental Health
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 Computation and Language
Sep 22
DIPLOMAT: Dialogue-Span-Aware Direct Preference Optimization for Polite Persuasive Workplace Negotiation Dialogues
arXiv:2609.22256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective workplace negotiation requires balancing multiple objectives, including achieving task goals, preserving professional relationships, and reso...
arXiv AI
Jun 12
LLMs Can Better Capture Human Judgments--With the Right Prompts
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
arXiv AI
Sep 10
Same Values, Different Languages? From Multilingual Probing to Steering LLMs Toward Chinese Social Values
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 AI
Jul 23
Prompt Programming for Cultural Bias and Alignment of Large Language Models
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.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 25
Polite but Misaligned: Evaluating LLM Politeness Judgments Against Human Pragmatic Norms
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.