Attribute-Based Diagnosis of LLM Alignment with Hate Speech Annotations

Hate speech detection is inherently subjective: people from different demographic groups perceive the same content very differently. Collecting enough annotations from multiple demographic groups is costly and difficult to scale. Persona-conditioned Large Language Models (models prompted to adopt a specific demographic identity) have been proposed as a way to simulate diverse perspectives at scale. But do they actually reflect how different groups disagree? We evaluate three aspects of human social judgement: (i) whether personas from different groups disagree in human-like ways (inter-group disagreement), (ii) whether they become more sensitive when content targets their own identity (in-group sensitivity), and (iii) whether they can accurately predict how another group would react (vicarious prediction). Our results show that no model consistently captures all three dimensions, and performance is highly model-dependent and does not emerge reliably from minimal identity prompts alone. However, vicarious prompting with Llama 3.1 yields the highest cross-group agreement in most demographic axes and provides the closest overall approximation to human disagreement patterns, indicating that this configuration may provide a more reliable setting for automatic annotation aligned with human judgements.

We investigate how annotator demographic attributes, supplied as prompt cues, shape the alignment between large language model (LLM) predictions and human annotations across five tasks. Using five open-source LLMs, we systematically vary the number and composition of demographic components in the prompt, spanning every combination from single-attribute through full-attribute configurations. Our experiments reveal three principal findings. First, alignment consistently peaks with one to three high-signal attributes and degrades under the full attribute set, establishing a clear over-specification threshold. Second, the overall magnitude of demographic influence on human annotations does not predict which attributes improve LLM alignment; instead, both the learnability and the directional coherence of each attribute's annotation signal need to be considered jointly. Third, neuron probing reveals that specialized activation correlates with alignment gains only under coherent annotation signals, and that activation volume alone does not imply steerability. Together, these results demonstrate that demographic prompting is not a monolithic intervention: its utility is highly context-dependent, shaped by attribute signal quality, task characteristics, and model architecture.

Aligning language models to qualitative behavioral traits, such as human-likeness, remains difficult because they are hard to define, measure, and optimize. As a result, improvements in human-like behavior are largely driven by scale or broad supervised training, rather than targeted alignment. We introduce Human Aligning LLMs (HAL), a framework for aligning language models to conversational human-likeness using an interpretable, data-driven reward. HAL derives explicit conversational traits from contrastive dialogue data, combines them into a compact scalar score, and uses this score as a transparent reward signal for alignment with standard preference optimization methods. Using this approach, we align models of varying sizes without affecting their overall performance. In large-scale Chatbot Arena-style human evaluations, a model aligned with HAL is more frequently perceived as human-like in conversation. Because HAL operates over explicit, interpretable traits, it enables inspection of alignment behavior and diagnosis of unintended effects. More broadly, HAL demonstrates how soft, qualitative properties of language--previously outside the scope for alignment--can be made measurable and aligned in an interpretable and explainable way.