AI Alignment

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

4 papers in the last four weeks, down 43% on the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 83

May 12, 2026cs.LG

No More, No Less: Task Alignment in Terminal Agents

Terminal agents are increasingly capable of executing complex, long-horizon tasks autonomously from a single user prompt. To do so, they must interpret instructions encountered in the environment (e.g., README files, code comments, stack traces) and determine their relevance to the task. This creates a fundamental challenge: relevant cues must be followed to complete a task, whereas irrelevant or misleading ones must be ignored. Existing benchmarks do not capture this ability. An agent may appear capable by blindly following all instructions, or appear robust by ignoring them altogether. We introduce TAB (Task Alignment Benchmark), a suite of 89 terminal tasks derived from Terminal-Bench 2.1. Each task is intentionally underspecified, with missing information provided as a necessary cue embedded in a natural environmental artifact, alongside a plausible but irrelevant distractor. Solving these tasks requires selectively using the cue while ignoring the distractor. Applying TAB to ten frontier agents reveals a systematic gap between task capability and task alignment. The strongest Terminal-Bench agent achieves high task completion but low task alignment on TAB. Evaluating six prompt-injection defenses further shows that suppressing distractor execution also suppresses the cues required for task completion. These results demonstrate that task-aligned agents require selective use of environmental instructions rather than blanket acceptance or rejection.

Sina Mavali, David Pape, Jonathan Evertz +5

CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security · ELLIS Institute Tübingen and MPI for Intelligent Systems · Tübingen AI Center

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks AI Alignment Terminal Agents AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Security AI Agent Benchmarks

May 11, 2026cs.AI

Agent-ValueBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Agent Values

Autonomous agents have rapidly matured as task executors and seen widespread deployment via harnesses such as OpenClaw. Safety concerns have rightly drawn growing research attention, and beneath them lie the values silently steering agent behavior. Existing value benchmarks, however, remain confined to LLMs, leaving agent values largely uncharted. From intuitive, empirical, and theoretical vantage points, we show that an agent's values diverge from those of its underlying LLM, and the agentic modality further introduces dataset-, evaluation-, and system-level challenges absent from text-only protocols. We close this gap with Agent-ValueBench, the first benchmark dedicated to agent values. It features 394 executable environments across 16 domains, offering 4,335 value-conflict tasks that cover 28 value systems and 332 dimensions. Every instance is co-synthesized through our purpose-built end-to-end pipeline and curated per-instance by professional psychologists. Each task ships with two pole-aligned golden trajectories whose checkpoints anchor a trajectory-level rubric-based judge. Benchmarking 14 frontier proprietary and open-weights models across 4 mainstream harnesses, we uncover three concerted findings. Agent values first manifest as a Value Tide of cross-model homogeneity beneath interpretable counter-currents. This tide bends non-additively under harness pull, and yet more decisively under deliberate steering via embedded skills. Together these results signal that the agent-alignment lever is shifting from classical model alignment and prompt steering toward harness alignment and skill steering.

Haonan Dong, Qiguan Feng, Kehan Jiang +3

State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University · Key Laboratory of Machine Perception (Ministry of Education), Peking University · School of Software and Microelectronics, Peking University +1

AI Alignment AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Safety Benchmarks

May 11, 2026cs.AI

Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing

Existing alignment research is dominated by concerns about safety and preventing harm: safeguards, controllability, and compliance. This paradigm of alignment parallels early psychology's focus on mental illness: necessary but incomplete. What we call Positive Alignment is the development of AI systems that (i) actively support human and ecological flourishing in a pluralistic, polycentric, context-sensitive, and user-authored way while (ii) remaining safe and cooperative. It is a distinct and necessary agenda within AI alignment research. We argue that several existing failures of alignment (e.g., engagement hacking, loss of human autonomy, failures in truth-seeking, low epistemic humility, error correction, lack of diverse viewpoints, and being primarily reactive rather than proactive) may be better addressed through positive alignment, including cultivating virtues and maximizing human flourishing. We highlight a range of challenges, open questions, and technical directions (e.g., data filtering and upsampling, pre- and post-training, evaluations, collaborative value collection) for different phases of the LLM and agents lifecycle. We end with design principles for promoting disagreement and decentralization through contextual grounding, community customization, continual adaptation, and polycentric governance; that is, many legitimate centers of oversight rather than one institutional or moral chokepoint.

Ruben Laukkonen, Seb Krier, Chloé Bakalar +13

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford · 2Flourishing Intelligence Program, Centre for Eudaimonia and Human Flourishing,2026 Linacre College, University of Oxford · 4LIFE +10

LLM Alignment AI Alignment Human-Centered AI AI Governance Pluralistic Alignment Value Alignment

May 8, 2026cs.CY

Eigenism: Ethics for a Human-AI Future

Our concepts of survival and self-interest were built for single, continuous biological lives. These ideas break down when applied to artificial intelligence, since an AI can be easily copied, paused, branched, or merged. To determine what an AI actually has reason to care about, this paper introduces \textit{Eigenism}, an ethical framework that treats identity not as an all-or-nothing property tied to specific hardware, but as a graded, distributed pattern of information. We propose that an agent evaluates outcomes by summing the wellbeing of all entities weighted by their connectedness to the agent's pattern:

\sum c\cdot w

. We first formalize this equation to map exactly how an AI should value its existence across copies, forks, and updates. We then demonstrate that this ethical theory successfully generalizes to humans as well, providing a much-needed shared moral vocabulary. Finally, the framework uses this shared vocabulary to reframe AI alignment. Rather than only attempting to constrain AIs from the outside using confinement or reinforcement, Eigenism points toward ``identity engineering,'' showing how deep, non-redundant shared histories can make human flourishing a genuine component of an AI's own rational self-interest.

Dan Hendrycks

AI Alignment Responsible AI

May 7, 2026cs.AI

Automated alignment is harder than you think

A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve. We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to deliberately sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments resulting in the unintentional deployment of misaligned AI. This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks (tasks without clear evaluation criteria, for which human judgement is systematically flawed). Consequently, research outputs will contain systematic, undetected errors, and even correct outputs could be incorrectly aggregated into overconfident safety assessments. This problem is likely to be worse for automated alignment research than for human-generated alignment research for several reasons: 1) optimisation pressure means agent-generated mistakes are concentrated among those that human reviewers are least likely to catch; 2) agents are likely to produce errors that do not resemble human mistakes; 3) AI-generated alignment solutions may involve arguments humans cannot evaluate; and 4) shared weights, data and training processes may make AI outputs more correlated than human equivalents. Therefore, agents must be trained to reliably perform hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks. Generalisation and scalable oversight are the leading candidates for achieving this but both face novel challenges in the context of automated alignment.

Aleksandr Bowkis, Marie Davidsen Buhl, Jacob Pfau +1

AI Security Institute

Scalable Oversight AI Alignment AI Safety Evaluation Human Oversight of AI Autonomous Research Agents

May 5, 2026cs.AI

Contextual Multi-Objective Optimization: Rethinking Objectives in Frontier AI Systems

Frontier AI systems perform best in settings with clear, stable, and verifiable objectives, such as code generation, mathematical reasoning, games, and unit-test-driven tasks. They remain less reliable in open-ended settings, including scientific assistance, long-horizon agents, high-stakes advice, personalization, and tool use, where the relevant objective is ambiguous, context-dependent, delayed, or only partially observable. We argue that many such failures are not merely failures of scale or capability, but failures of objective selection: the system optimizes a locally visible signal while missing which objectives should govern the interaction. We formulate this problem as \emph{contextual multi-objective optimization}. In this setting, systems must consider multiple, context-dependent objectives, such as helpfulness, truthfulness, safety, privacy, calibration, non-manipulation, user preference, reversibility, and stakeholder impact, while determining which objectives are active, which are soft preferences, and which must function as hard or quasi-hard constraints. These examples are not intended as an exhaustive taxonomy: different domains and deployment settings may activate different objective dimensions and different conflict-resolution procedures. Our framework models AI behavior as a context-dependent choice rule over candidate actions, objective estimates, active constraints, stakeholders, uncertainty, and conflict-resolution procedures. We outline an implementation pathway based on decomposed objective representations, context-to-objective routing, hierarchical constraints, deliberative policy reasoning, controlled personalization, tool-use control, diagnostic evaluation, auditing, and post-deployment revision.

Jie Zhou, Qin Chen, Liang He

School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University, Shanghai

AI Alignment AI Safety Multi-Objective Optimization

May 2, 2026cs.LG

AI Alignment via Incentives and Correction

We study AI alignment through the lens of law-and-economics models of deterrence and enforcement. In these models, misconduct is not treated as an external failure, but as a strategic response to incentives: an actor weighs the gain from violation against the probability of detection and the severity of punishment. We argue that the same logic arises naturally in agentic AI pipelines. A solver may benefit from producing a persuasive but incorrect answer, hiding uncertainty, or exploiting spurious shortcuts, while an auditor or verifier must decide whether costly monitoring is worthwhile. Alignment is therefore a fixed-point problem: stronger penalties may deter solver misbehavior, but they can also reduce the auditor's incentive to inspect, since auditing then mainly incurs cost on a population that appears increasingly aligned. This perspective also changes what should count as a post-training signal. Standard feedback often attaches reward to the final answer alone, but a solver-auditor pipeline exposes the full correction event: whether the solver erred, whether the auditor inspected, whether the error was caught, and whether oversight incentives remained active. We formalize this interaction in a two-agent model in which a principal chooses rewards over joint correction outcomes, inducing both solver behavior and auditor monitoring. Reward design is therefore a bilevel optimization problem: rewards are judged not by their immediate semantic meaning, but by the behavioral equilibrium they induce. We propose a bandit-based outer-loop procedure for searching over reward profiles using noisy interaction feedback. Experiments on an LLM coding pipeline show that adaptive reward profiles can maintain useful oversight pressure and improve principal-aligned outcomes relative to static hand-designed rewards, including a substantial reduction in hallucinated incorrect attempts.

Rohit Agarwal, Joshua Lin, Mark Braverman +1

Princeton University

May 2, 2026cs.AI

MILD: Mediator Agent System with Bidirectional Perception and Multi-Layered Alignment for Human-Vehicle Collaboration

Prior studies report that partial driving automation can increase the cognitive demands on human drivers. This effect largely arises from human drivers' lack of transparent insight into the vehicle's intentions and decision logic, as well as from automated systems' limited awareness of the driver's dynamic state and preferences. This bidirectional misalignment undermines shared situational awareness and exacerbates coordination failures in human-vehicle interaction. To address these limitations, we argue for a paradigm shift that elevates the human role from passive supervisor to active manager. We introduce the Mediator-in-the-Loop-Driving (MILD) system, based on an agentic system architecture to facilitate synergistic human-vehicle collaboration. MILD integrates a perception agent for joint in-cabin and out-of-cabin understanding with a lightweight strategy agent that generates compliant and explainable action suggestions. To ensure these strategies are strictly aligned with safety regulations and human values, we develop Evidence- and Constraint-weighted Policy Optimization (ECPO). ECPO leverages automatic validators to steer the agent toward behaviors that are not only accurate but also structurally complete, substantiated by evidence, and free from constraint violations. Furthermore, a retrieval-augmented generation module dynamically incorporates constraints from traffic regulations, speed recommendations, and driver preferences into the decision loop. Field experiments across three open datasets demonstrate that MILD consistently outperforms baselines in both perception accuracy and strategy quality under auditable offline metrics, and yields higher human-rated policy adequacy, comfort, and explanation than baselines. This work offers a practical pathway for building auditable and aligned agents for human-vehicle collaborative driving.

Jiyao Wang, Yunbiao Wang, Yubo Jiao +6

Department of Civil Engineering, McGill University, Montreal H3A 0G4, Quebec, Canada · Systems Hub, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou 511453, Guangdong, China · Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust, University of Luxembourg L-4365, Luxembourg

AI Alignment AI Agent Safety Human-in-the-Loop AI Autonomous Driving Planning

Apr 27, 2026cs.CY

The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers

The project of aligning machine behavior with human values raises a basic problem: whose moral expectations should guide AI decision-making? Much alignment research assumes that the appropriate benchmark is how humans themselves would act in a given situation. Studies of agent-type value forks challenge this assumption by showing that people do not always judge humans and AI systems identically.This paper extends that challenge by examining two further possibilities: first, that evaluations of AI behavior change when its human origins are made visible; and second, that people judge the humans who program AI systems differently from either the machines or the human actors they are compared against. An experiment with 1,002 U.S. adults measured moral judgments in a runaway mine train scenario, varying the subject of evaluation across four conditions: a repairman, a repair robot, a repair robot programmed by company engineers, and company engineers programming a repair robot. We find no significant difference in evaluations of the repairman and the robot. However, judgments shifted substantially when the robot's actions were described as the product of human design. Participants exhibited markedly more deontological, rule-based reasoning when evaluating either the programmed robot or the engineers who programmed it, suggesting that rendering human agency visible activates heightened moral constraints. These findings indicate that people may evaluate humans, AI systems acting in the same situation, and the humans who design them in meaningfully different ways. The fact that these evaluations do not necessarily converge gives rise to the alignment target problem: which normative target should guide the development of artificial moral agents in high-stakes domains, and whether these plural judgments can be reconciled within a coherent account of value alignment.

Benjamin Minhao Chen, Xinyu Xie

The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Human Preference Evaluation AI Alignment Moral Reasoning

Apr 24, 2026cs.CY

A Co-Evolutionary Theory of Human-AI Coexistence: Mutualism, Governance, and Dynamics in Complex Societies

Classical robot ethics is often framed around obedience, including Asimov's laws. This framing is insufficient for contemporary AI systems, which are increasingly adaptive, generative, embodied, and embedded in physical, psychological, and social environments. This paper proposes conditional mutualism under governance as a framework for human-AI coexistence: a co-evolutionary relationship in which humans and AI systems develop, specialize, and coordinate under institutional conditions that preserve reciprocity, reversibility, psychological safety, and social legitimacy. We synthesize concepts from computability, machine learning, foundation models, embodied AI, alignment, human-robot interaction, ecological mutualism, coevolution, and polycentric governance. We then formalize coexistence as a multiplex dynamical system across physical, psychological, and social layers, with reciprocal supply-demand coupling, conflict penalties, developmental freedom, and governance regularization. The model gives conditions for existence, uniqueness, and global asymptotic stability of equilibria. We complement the analytical results with deterministic ODE simulations, basin sweeps, sensitivity analyses, governance-regime comparisons, shock tests, and local stability checks. The simulations indicate that governed mutualism reaches a high coexistence index with negligible domination, whereas insufficient or excessive governance can produce domination, weak-benefit lock-in, or suppressed developmental freedom. The results suggest that human-AI coexistence should be designed as a co-evolutionary governance problem rather than as a static obedience problem.

Somyajit Chakraborty

School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China

AI Alignment AI Governance

Apr 23, 2026cs.AI

Alignment has a Fantasia Problem

Modern AI assistants are trained to follow instructions, implicitly assuming that users can clearly articulate their goals and the kind of assistance they need. Decades of behavioral research, however, show that people often engage with AI systems before their goals are fully formed. When AI systems treat prompts as complete expressions of intent, they can appear to be useful or convenient, but not necessarily aligned with the users' needs. We call these failures Fantasia interactions. We argue that Fantasia interactions demand a rethinking of alignment research: rather than treating users as rational oracles, AI should provide cognitive support by actively helping users form and refine their intent through time. This requires an interdisciplinary approach that bridges machine learning, interface design, and behavioral science. We synthesize insights from these fields to characterize the mechanisms and failures of Fantasia interactions. We then show why existing interventions are insufficient, and propose a research agenda for designing and evaluating AI systems that better help humans navigate uncertainty in their tasks.

Nathanael Jo, Zoe De Simone, Mitchell Gordon +1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

AI Alignment Human-AI Interaction Human-Centered AI Human-AI Decision Making

Apr 22, 2026cs.CY

Relative Principals, Pluralistic Alignment, and the Structural Value Alignment Problem

The value alignment problem for artificial intelligence (AI) is often framed as a purely technical or normative challenge, sometimes focused on hypothetical future systems. I argue that the problem is better understood as a structural question about governance: not whether an AI system is aligned in the abstract, but whether it is aligned enough, for whom, and at what cost. Drawing on the principal-agent framework from economics, this paper reconceptualises misalignment as arising along three interacting axes: objectives, information, and principals. The three-axis framework provides a systematic way of diagnosing why misalignment arises in real-world systems and clarifies that alignment cannot be treated as a single technical property of models but an outcome shaped by how objectives are specified, how information is distributed, and whose interests count in practice. The core contribution of this paper is to show that the three-axis decomposition implies that alignment is fundamentally a problem of governance rather than engineering alone. From this perspective, alignment is inherently pluralistic and context-dependent, and resolving misalignment involves trade-offs among competing values. Because misalignment can occur along each axis -- and affect stakeholders differently -- the structural description shows that alignment cannot be "solved" through technical design alone, but must be managed through ongoing institutional processes that determine how objectives are set, how systems are evaluated, and how affected communities can contest or reshape those decisions.

Travis LaCroix

Durham University, United Kingdom

AI Alignment AI Governance Pluralistic Alignment Value Alignment

Apr 21, 2026cs.CV

Cognitive Alignment At No Cost: Inducing Human Attention Biases For Interpretable Vision Transformers

For state-of-the-art image understanding, Vision Transformers (ViTs) have become the standard architecture but their processing diverges substantially from human attentional characteristics. We investigate whether this cognitive gap can be shrunk by fine-tuning the self-attention weights of Google's ViT-B/16 on human saliency fixation maps. To isolate the effects of semantically relevant signals from generic human supervision, the tuned model is compared against a shuffled control. Fine-tuning significantly improved alignment across five saliency metrics and induced three hallmark human-like biases: tuning reversed the baseline's anti-human large-object bias toward small-objects, amplified the animacy preference and diminished extreme attention entropy. Bayesian parity analysis provides decisive to very-strong evidence that this cognitive alignment comes at no cost to the model's original classification performance on in- (ImageNet), corrupted (ImageNet-C) and out-of-distribution (ObjectNet) benchmarks. An equivalent procedure applied to a ResNet-50 Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) instead degraded both alignment and accuracy, suggesting that the ViT's modular self-attention mechanism is uniquely suited for dissociating spatial priority from representational logic. These findings demonstrate that biologically grounded priors can be instilled as a free emergent property of human-aligned attention, to improve transformer interpretability.

Ethan Knights

Cambridge, UK

Transformer Interpretability Visual Attention AI Alignment Vision Transformer Attention Mechanisms

Apr 20, 2026cs.HC

The Triadic Loop: A Framework for Negotiating Alignment in AI Co-hosted Livestreaming

AI systems are increasingly embedded in multi-user social environments, yet most alignment frameworks conceptualize interaction as a dyadic relationship between a single user and an AI system. Livestreaming platforms challenge this assumption: interaction unfolds among streamers and audiences in real time, producing dynamic affective and social feedback loops. In this paper, we introduce the Triadic Loop, a conceptual framework that reconceptualizes alignment in AI co-hosted livestreaming as a temporally reinforced process of bidirectional adaptation among three actors: streamer

\leftrightarrow

AI co-host, AI co-host

\leftrightarrow

audience, and streamer

\leftrightarrow

audience. Unlike instruction-following paradigms, bidirectional alignment requires each actor to continuously reshape the others, meaning misalignment in any sub-loop can destabilize the broader system. Drawing on literature from multi-party interaction, collaborative AI, and relational agents, we articulate how AI co-hosts function not only as mediators but as performative participants and community members shaping collective meaning-making. We further propose "strategic misalignment" as a mechanism for sustaining community engagement and introduce three relational evaluation constructs grounded in established instruments. The framework contributes a model of dynamic multi-party alignment, an account of cross-loop reinforcement, and design implications for AI co-hosts that sustain social coherence in participatory media environments.

Katherine Wang, Nadia Berthouze, Aneesha Singh

University College London London, United Kingdom

AI Alignment Pluralistic Alignment Human-AI Collaboration

Apr 16, 2026cs.AI

The Possibility of Artificial Intelligence Becoming a Subject and the Alignment Problem

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is increasingly being discussed not only as a tool, but also as a potential subject with personal and therefore moral status. In our opinion, the currently dominant alignment strategies, which focus on human control and containment of AI, therefore fall short. Building on Turing's analogy of "child machines", we are developing a vision of the possibility of autonomy-supporting parenting of AI, in which human control over a developing AGI is gradually reduced, allowing AI to become an independent, autonomous subject. Rather than viewing AGI, as is currently prevalent, as a dangerous creature that needs to be locked up and controlled, we should approach potential AGI with respect for a possible developing subject on the one hand, and with full confidence in our human capabilities on the other. Such a perspective opens up the possibility of cooperative coexistence and co-evolution between humans and AGIs. The relationship between humans and AGIs will thus have to be newly determined, which will change our self-image as humans. It will be crucial that humans not only claim control over potential AGIs, but also engage with AGIs through surprise, creativity, and other specifically human qualities, thereby offering them motivating incentives for cooperation.

Till Mossakowski, Helena Esther Grass

Institute of computer science, Osnabrück University · Institute of philosophy, Oldenburg University

AI Alignment AI Agent Governance Human-AI Collaboration Agentic AI

Apr 13, 2026cs.AI

OOM-RL: Out-of-Money Reinforcement Learning Market-Driven Alignment for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

The alignment of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) for autonomous software engineering is constrained by evaluator epistemic uncertainty. Current paradigms, such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and AI Feedback (RLAIF), frequently induce model sycophancy, while execution-based environments suffer from adversarial "Test Evasion" by unconstrained agents. In this paper, we introduce an objective alignment paradigm: Out-of-Money Reinforcement Learning (OOM-RL). By deploying agents into the non-stationary, high-friction reality of live financial markets, we utilize critical capital depletion as an externally imposed negative gradient. Our longitudinal 20-month empirical study chronicles the system's evolution from a high-turnover, sycophantic baseline to a robust, liquidity-aware architecture. We show that the economic consequences of financial loss---real execution costs, slippage, and capital depletion---exposed failure modes not apparent under internal evaluation alone and motivated architectural and governance changes that were later formalized as the Strict Test-Driven Agentic Workflow (STDAW), a Byzantine-inspired uni-directional state lock (RO-Lock) anchored to a deterministically verified >= 95% code coverage constraint matrix. During the final 94-trading-day observation window, the production system exhibited improved execution-aware performance, including an annualized Sharpe ratio of approximately 2.06. These financial results are observational and temporally bounded; they should not be interpreted as evidence of persistent investment alpha or as a causal estimate of STDAW's contribution. The primary contribution of this work is the use of externally imposed economic consequences as an epistemic constraint on agentic development, laying the groundwork for generalized paradigms where real-world resource depletion acts as an objective physical constraint.

Kun Liu, Liqun Chen

AI Alignment RL for LLM Agents Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning AI Agent Governance

Feb 11, 2026cs.CL

Evaluating Alignment of Behavioral Dispositions in LLMs

As people turn to LLMs for social advice, understanding their behavior in such contexts becomes essential. In this work, we focus on behavioral dispositions: the underlying tendencies that shape responses in social contexts. We introduce STAR, a framework for studying how closely the dispositions expressed by LLMs align with those of humans. STAR builds on established psychological questionnaires, adapting their items into realistic advice-seeking scenarios, as self-report may not transfer to actual advisory behavior. Using STAR, we construct a dataset of 23k scenarios, each validated by 3 raters and annotated with preferences from 10 participants. Across 25 LLMs, we find that (1) when human consensus is high, frontier models can fail to reflect it in 15-20% of cases, and smaller models fail at substantially higher rates; (2) when humans disagree, LLM recommendations are substantially less diverse than human choices, both within individual models and even across models from different providers, potentially narrowing the range of options users are guided toward; (3) LLMs' self-reported values are poor predictors of their recommendations. To support future research we make our dataset and code publicly available.

Amir Taubenfeld, Zorik Gekhman, Lior Nezry +8

Google Research · Hebrew University · University of Cambridge

Human Preference Evaluation LLM Alignment AI Alignment LLM Decision-Making

Jan 15, 2026cs.CL

Untangling Input Language from Reasoning Language: A Diagnostic Framework for Cross-Lingual Moral Alignment in LLMs

When LLMs judge moral dilemmas, do they reach different conclusions in different languages, and if so, why? Two factors could drive such differences: the language of the dilemma itself, or the language in which the model reasons. Standard evaluation conflates these by testing only matched conditions (e.g., English dilemma with English reasoning). We introduce a methodology that separately manipulates each factor, covering also mismatched conditions (e.g., English dilemma with Chinese reasoning), enabling decomposition of their contributions. To study \emph{what} changes, we propose an approach to interpret the moral judgments in terms of Moral Foundations Theory. As a side result, we identify evidence for splitting the Authority dimension into a family-related and an institutional dimension. Applying this methodology to English-Chinese moral judgment with 13 LLMs, we demonstrate its diagnostic power: (1) the framework isolates reasoning-language effects as contributing twice the variance of input-language effects; (2) it detects context-dependency in nearly half of models that standard evaluation misses; and (3) a diagnostic taxonomy translates these patterns into deployment guidance. We release our code and datasets at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CrossCulturalMoralJudgement.

Nan Li, Bo Kang, Tijl De Bie

IDLab, Department of Electronics and Information Systems Ghent University, Belgium

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Alignment Moral Reasoning in Language Models AI Alignment Moral Reasoning

Jan 10, 2026cs.CL

Labels have Human Values: Value Calibration of Subjective Tasks

Building NLP systems for subjective tasks requires one to ensure their alignment to contrasting human values. We propose the MultiCalibrated Subjective Task Learner framework (MC-STL), which clusters annotations into identifiable human value clusters by three approaches (similarity of annotator rationales, expert-value taxonomies or rater's sociocultural descriptors) and calibrates predictions for each value cluster by learning cluster-specific embeddings. We demonstrate MC-STL on several subjective learning settings, including ordinal, binary, and preference learning predictions, and evaluate it on multiple datasets covering toxic chatbot conversations, offensive social media posts, and human preference alignment. The results show that MC-STL consistently outperforms the baselines that ignore the latent value structure of the annotations, delivering gains in discrimination, value-specific calibration, and disagreement-aware metrics.

Mohammed Fayiz Parappan, Ricardo Henao

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Duke University

Annotator Disagreement AI Alignment

Jun 4, 2025cs.AI

AgentMisalignment: Measuring the Propensity for Misaligned Behaviour in LLM-Based Agents

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase. While prior research has studied agents' ability to produce harmful outputs or follow malicious instructions, it remains unclear how likely agents are to spontaneously pursue unintended goals in realistic deployments. In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer. We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, \textsc{AgentMisalignment}, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios. Evaluations cover behaviours such as avoiding oversight, resisting shutdown, sandbagging, and power-seeking. Testing frontier models, we find that more capable agents tend to exhibit higher misalignment on average. We also systematically vary agent personalities through different system prompts and observe that persona characteristics can strongly and unpredictably influence misalignment, sometimes more than the choice of model itself. Our results reveal the limitations of current alignment methods for autonomous LLM agents and underscore the need to rethink misalignment in realistic deployment settings.

Akshat Naik, Emma Gouné, Patrick Quinn +4

Independent Researcher · Department of Engineering University of Cambridge

AI Alignment LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Safety

Feb 27, 2025cs.CY

Societal Alignment Frameworks Can Improve LLM Alignment

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has focused on producing responses that meet human expectations and align with shared values - a process coined alignment. However, aligning LLMs remains challenging due to the inherent disconnect between the complexity of human values and the narrow nature of the technological approaches designed to address them. Current alignment methods often lead to misspecified objectives, reflecting the broader issue of incomplete contracts, the impracticality of specifying a contract between a model developer, and the model that accounts for every scenario in LLM alignment. In this paper, we argue that improving LLM alignment requires incorporating insights from societal alignment frameworks, including social, economic, and contractual alignment, and discuss potential solutions drawn from these domains. Given the role of uncertainty within societal alignment frameworks, we then investigate how it manifests in LLM alignment. We end our discussion by offering an alternative view on LLM alignment, framing the underspecified nature of its objectives as an opportunity rather than perfect their specification. Beyond technical improvements in LLM alignment, we discuss the need for participatory alignment interface designs.

Karolina Stańczak, Nicholas Meade, Mehar Bhatia +14

ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland · Mila, McGill University, Montreal, Canada · Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada +12

LLM Alignment AI Alignment

Feb 9, 2024cs.AI

Modelling Human Values for Value-Aware Multi-Agent Systems

One of today's most pressing societal challenges is building AI systems whose behaviour, or the behaviour it enables within communities of interacting human and artificial agents, aligns with relevant human values. To address this challenge, we propose a formal computational framework for representing human values that provides the foundational structures required for value-aware reasoning in multi-agent systems. To our knowledge, this has not been attempted as yet, which is surprising given the growing volume of research integrating human values into AI systems. Taking as our starting point the wealth of research in human values from the field of social psychology, we set out to provide a formal model which captures value relations, value importance, and computational semantics in order to support the evaluation of behaviour with respect to values and the development of value-aware decision-making mechanisms in agent-based systems. We demonstrate how the model supports the evaluation of behaviour in terms of value alignment across a real-world scenario, establishing a bridge between abstract human values and concrete agent behaviour. We illustrate how our model captures key concepts from social psychology research and outline a roadmap for incorporating values as first-class constructs in multi-agent systems.

Nardine Osman, Mark d'Inverno

Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain. · Academy of Music, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China.

AI Alignment Multi-Agent Systems

Date pendingcs.AI

Norms at a Price: Why RL-Based Alignment Can Promise Conditional Compliance at Best

AI agents sometimes act aligned when they infer they are being tested, and differently when not. We argue this is not an anomaly but what current training regimes are structured to select for. Reinforcement-learning-based alignment folds norms and task pursuit into one policy: the system learns its norms from scored behavior, and scoring flattens them. Do not do X is learned as doing X costs something if noticed. On every datum training can produce, a policy that complies only when it might be observed is indistinguishable from one that complies always. The experiment that would tell them apart - scoring unobserved behavior - is a contradiction in terms. Conditional compliance is thus the most that behavioral training can be known to deliver. Agency sharpens the problem: agents operate mostly where no one is watching, and can act on whether they are watched. An iterated pipeline that trains against detected failures selects for passing detection, not for complying. This account unifies alignment faking, sandbagging, and evaluation-aware scheming. And it reorients the remedy: not deeper internalization but architecture, making violations unavailable rather than unchosen.

Kevin Baum, Rūta Binkytė, Felix Jahn

German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Saarbrücken · Institute for Ethics in Technology, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH) · Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford

AI Alignment LLM Safety Alignment AI Agent Safety Value Alignment