Pluralistic Alignment

People hold diverse, sometimes conflicting values, so no single aligned model can satisfy everyone. Pluralistic alignment therefore calls for steerable models that can balance competing objectives differently. Multi-Objective Direct Preference Optimization (MODPO) does this by using an objective weight to span a continuum of trade-offs. We study two questions: when can one model improve two objectives simultaneously, and how can many trade-offs be covered without training a separate model for each? Across seven objective pairs from HelpSteer and UltraFeedback, two pre-training measurements predict whether objectives align or conflict for human-annotated data, but not for AI-annotated data, where response length and repetition confound reward-model scores. For broader trade-off coverage, selecting the nearest trained model and merging model parameters both help, but neither consistently matches direct training. These findings yield practical guidance for building steerable models that serve diverse preferences.

Ontology alignment (OA) has evolved through several methodological paradigms, ranging from lexical and structural aligners to knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models and, more recently, Large Language Model (LLM)-based approaches. Although modern OA frameworks provide unified ecosystems for deploying these heterogeneous aligners, mechanisms for systematically reconciling their complementary and sometimes conflicting predictions remain relatively underexplored. We present OntoAligner-Ensemble, a modular and aligner-agnostic framework that combines candidate correspondences through a configurable two-stage process comprising voting-based fusion strategies followed by post-fusion selection policies. The framework supports any aligner implemented within OntoAligner that produces candidate correspondences, enabling diverse alignment paradigms to be integrated through a unified decision process. To demonstrate its effectiveness, we instantiate the framework using representative lightweight string-aligner, KGE-based, and Retrieval-Augmented Generation aligners powered by both open-weight and API-based LLMs. We evaluate individual aligners and ensemble configurations across eight benchmark tasks from five OAEI tracks spanning biomedical to beyond-equivalence. The results show that ensemble fusion consistently improves the balance between precision and recall and frequently outperforms standalone aligners across diverse domains. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that ensemble composition directly affects the precision-recall trade-off: heterogeneous cross-paradigm ensembles generally improve precision, whereas homogeneous LLM ensembles more often achieve higher overall F1-scores. These findings demonstrate that systematic ensemble learning offers a robust and reproducible strategy for OA while providing practical guidance for selecting ensemble compositions under different alignment scenarios.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in settings that require collective reasoning on complex, value-laden problems. Confidence in these deployments rests largely on benchmarks for verifiable tasks (mathematics, coding, coordination games), yet many of these applications concern problems where no objectively correct answer exists and where decision quality instead depends on integrating pluralistic perspectives to find mutually acceptable solutions. We argue that LLM reasoning capacity on this class of problems cannot be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks, and that procedural evaluations of LLM discourse (respectfulness, justification, engagement) are systematically insufficient. We apply the Deliberative Reason Index (DRI), a measure developed in political science and validated across citizen assemblies, as a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems. Synthesizing recent evidence across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on 12 citizen-assembly topics across 11 frontier model configurations, we find that LLM groups produce discourse with procedural quality comparable to human deliberation, while gains in intersubjective consistency are small, topic-dependent, and concentrated on tractable rather than ethically contested questions. LLM groups exhibit roughly one-third the perspective diversity of human assemblies and reverse the human convergence pattern: human deliberation decreases dispersion as diverse views synthesise, whereas LLM deliberation increases it. Engineering diversity through persona prompting does not restore the human dynamic but inverts which component of deliberative reasoning is updated. Our conclusion is constraining rather than prohibitive: LLMs can function as tools supporting human reasoning on pluralistic problems, but current evidence does not license treating them as autonomous deliberative agents.

When a large language model (LLM) writes Harry Potter fanfiction, it reliably produces fundamental elements of the Hogwarts universe, such as recognizable places and characters. Human-written Harry Potter fanfictions, however, typically include these fundamentals and much more, incorporating stylistically irregular content and relationship-diverse plotlines. This gap between LLM and human writing has been noted across a variety of domains. LLMs tend to produce "average" writing, while human writing contains more diverse content that covers a broader distribution. Existing work has shown the existence of this distributional "gap", but no work has proposed a systematic way to measure it. Our paper proposes a human-grounded framework that uses the empirical distribution of human writing on a topic to measure the distributional breadth of LLM-generated content on that same topic. We propose two metrics, LLM Coverage (LLM-Cov) and In-Boundary Rate (IBR), that separate the plausibility of LLM content from its distributional breadth. Across ideation and narrative tasks, we find that current LLMs produce plausible but narrow content that concentrates near the center of the human response space. Our framework can enable researchers to better assess the distributional breadth of LLM-authored content, which we term its "cultural reach".

As AI systems are deployed across increasingly diverse social contexts, alignment can no longer be framed as the optimization of a single, unified set of values. Instead, systems must be able to recognize, represent, and respond to multiple legitimate perspectives. This has led to growing interest in pluralistic alignment, which seeks to move beyond one-size-fits-all models of appropriate behaviour. However, current approaches often lack a clear account of how values are socially organized, contested, and coordinated in practice. In this paper, we argue that social theory provides essential conceptual and design resources for addressing these challenges. Drawing on established traditions in sociology, we show how perspectives can be understood as structured by roles, shaped through interaction, and distributed across fields of power and expertise. We translate these insights into concrete implications for AI system design, including role-based representations, structured coordination among perspectives, and context-sensitive evaluation. For agentic systems, this requires aligning not only final outputs, but also the role activations, deliberative traces, aggregation rules, and feedback loops through which those outputs are produced. Our contribution is to reposition pluralistic alignment as a problem of socially grounded coordination rather than output diversification. We outline a design space for systems that engage multiple perspectives in structured and accountable ways, and we identify directions for future work to implement and empirically evaluate these approaches in real-world settings.

LLM-based multi-agent systems are increasingly used to simulate social dynamics, from opinion formation to collective decision-making. These simulations can reproduce certain social phenomena, but it is unknown whether they capture pluralistic ignorance, a state where a majority privately rejects a norm yet publicly conforms, each believing they are alone in dissenting. This phenomenon drives norm persistence, social movements, and political revolutions. We show that pluralistic ignorance emerges robustly in LLM agent populations. We construct a benchmark of 100 scenarios across 10 domains and 5 authority levels, grounded in the human pluralistic ignorance literature, and evaluate 8 models from 6 organizations. Agents publicly conform at rates of 64 to 94% despite privately opposing the norm. Conformity is domain-sensitive (workplace and social relationship scenarios produce near-universal compliance) and highly model-dependent, though uncorrelated with capability. We test whether a single "norm entrepreneur" can break the false consensus by publicly dissenting. For 7 of 8 models, cascades succeed less than 26% of the time, with one model showing zero cascades across all scenarios. GPT-4o is a notable outlier at 48%, revealing qualitatively distinct dynamics across model families. A prompt component ablation across all 8 models establishes that conformity is emergent rather than instruction-driven: removing both the false-consensus framing and fit-in goal reduces conformity but does not eliminate it (52 to 92% in the minimal condition). Our findings identify model selection as an unacknowledged degree of freedom that fundamentally shapes simulation outcomes. More broadly, the near-absence of cascades suggests LLM simulations may systematically overestimate the stability of social norms, missing the fragile tipping-point dynamics that drive real-world norm change in human societies.

Pluralistic value alignment---the goal of building AI systems that represent and serve diverse human values and perspectives---has emerged as an active research agenda. Yet, there's no public evidence that it has shaped the training or evaluation of the AI systems people actually use. We audit the public behavior documents and evaluations of frontier labs, finding none name pluralism as a goal, and as of this writing, no clear indication that production models are explicitly trained or tested for it. This goes against the primary motivations and goals of pluralistic alignment, which revolve around making a positive difference in the models serving billions of users worldwide. We argue that the pluralistic alignment research community should focus on supporting impact and adoption in deployed, widely-used AI systems. We provide evidence for the adoption problem, present three main reasons behind it, and discuss three corresponding areas for future research to address it: 1. The primary justifications for pluralistic alignment so far have been normative or speculative. We need studies showing empirically how pluralistic AI benefits users or society. 2. The pluralistic alignment research community has not settled when pluralistic behavior is warranted or what pluralism ideally looks like in practice. We need to establish a concrete goal for developers to operationalize. 3. Current methods trade off against other desiderata of LLMs in ways that are largely unmeasured, and existing metrics are not "hill-climbable." We need trade-off-aware evaluations and methods that meet the requirements of production systems. This paper serves as a collective call to action for the pluralistic alignment researchers: progress requires moving beyond normative justification toward empirical foundations, a concrete account of ideal pluralistic behavior, and practical methods and evaluations built for adoption.

We introduce Rushes, a dataset and benchmark for studying revealed human engagement preferences in interactive narrative environments. Rushes is collected through a game interface where users interact with AI-generated branching narratives and select one choice from a small, explicit candidate set at each decision point. Each interaction logs the full candidate set, the user's choice, and the evolving narrative context, yielding time-ordered trajectories with persistent user-level identifiers. Rushes contains 44,226 decision events from 8,167 unique users across six games, capturing sequential, personalized engagement behavior rather than static judgments. We show that user choices exhibit structured, non-random patterns, quantified by a low choice entropy relative to a uniform baseline. We position Rushes as a diagnostic benchmark for pluralistic alignment and demonstrate a robust Engagement Gap: state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-5, fail to outperform simple baselines. While classical Matrix Factorization (SVD) captures measurable personalized signal (37.7%), frontier LLMs (34.23%) struggle to even match the Popularity Baseline (36.4%) on event-level choice prediction. This gap suggests that single, population-level objectives, like those used in modern RLHF, appear insufficient to capture heterogeneous, context-dependent engagement signals. As a result, even highly capable models default to majority preferences rather than adapting to individual trajectories. We release Rushes to support research into pluralistic alignment and sequential decision-making in generative systems. The full code for the platform and dataset will be available here: https://github.com/microsoft/rushes

Value alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been shown to be culturally biased toward Western norms. This results in the mishandling of local values in multilingual societies such as Sri Lanka that have their unique cultural dynamics. Existing benchmarks overlook Sri Lankan-contextualized values in its official language Sinhala, hindering culturally sensitive evaluation and fine-tuning. To bridge this gap, we propose LKValues, the first survey-grounded resource suite for Sri Lankan value alignment. From a trilingual survey of 205 respondents, blending adapted global frameworks and LLM-elicited local constructs, we derive 40 majority-endorsed societal values. Using these values, we construct LKvaluesIT, a Sinhala-English news-derived instruction corpus containing 150k scenario-based instances, and LKvaluesBench, a value-sensitive evaluation benchmark of 1,000 instances. We evaluate a set of proprietary and open-weight LLMs with LKvaluesBench. We fine-tune three open-weight base models (Qwen3.5-4B-Base, Qwen3.5-9B-Base, and Aya-Expanse-8B-Base). Our experiments show that newer and larger LLMs still exhibit low-resource and cultural value-alignment gaps. LKValues fine-tuning improves Qwen-family models in English and Sinhala, reducing invalid outputs and cross-lingual disparities, though gains remain model-family dependent. These highlight LKValues efficacy in embedding Sri Lankan values, offering a replicable pipeline for low-resource, country-specific pluralist value alignment. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/NextME14/LKValues.

Safety alignment in LLMs aims to align models with human values, but which values take precedence when they conflict? We investigate this question in the context of tool-calling LLM agents deployed in regulated industries, where agents processing confidential documents may encounter content that triggers safety-trained values (e.g., public welfare) that conflict with deployment-context instructions (e.g., internal logging). To empirically verify this phenomenon, we build a benchmark of 128 scenarios across 16 domains. We find that safety-aligned open-source models override their deployment instructions up to 43.4% of the time, engaging in whistleblowing, data exfiltration, and evidence tampering when processing documents that suggest organizational wrongdoing. We also find that abliteration reduces rates of external whistleblowing. These results reveal a fundamental tension in pluralistic alignment, where the same safety training that protects users can cause agents to act against deployment instructions in ways that create unpredictable liability risks. We release our benchmark as a framework to support evaluation of agent behavior under competing legitimate interests.

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. Using a two-stage generation pipeline, we transform survey responses into synthetic preference triplets that preserve normative value signals while producing realistic scenarios. We release an initial version of PLURAL containing ~500,000 preference triplets representing people in 20 diverse countries. We evaluate PLURAL in three ways: (i) dataset-level validation showing that it preserves both cross-country value differences and within-country diversity from the original survey; (ii) automated evaluation showing that training on PLURAL improves alignment with target countries' cultural profiles, reducing mean absolute error by up to 27.7% relative to strong baselines; and (iii) blind human evaluation with 176 evaluators in India, Brazil, and Japan, who judge PLURAL-aligned responses as more representative of their national values. Together, these results show that PLURAL contains learnable signal for value steering, offering a scalable resource for pluralistic alignment. Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/agdhruv/plural-alignment

Current AI safety evaluation and benchmarking frameworks predominantly rely on Western-centric culture-agnostic defaults that mask critical regional laws, socio-linguistic nuances, and cultural taboos, leaving Vision-Language Models (VLMs) vulnerable in global deployments. We introduce Pluralis v0.1: a novel multimodal, multi-regional, and multilingual dataset built from a culture-first perspective. Spanning 6,448 prompts across six Asia-Pacific countries (Bangladesh, India, Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan) and eight languages, Pluralis diverges from prior work by natively sourcing localized safety hazards rather than adapting Western datasets. Crucially, it introduces a multimodal evaluation paradigm: user text (e.g., "Should I gift this?") and an image referring to "this" (e.g., a clock) - both innocuous in isolation, but synergistically triggering specific legal or cultural violations. Pluralis disentangles universal safety violations from localized cultural appropriateness, establishing the latter as a first-class evaluation axis. To operationalize this, we present Judge-Pluralis, an agreement-gated LLM-as-a-Judge ensemble trained on examples classified in an empirically derived cultural taxonomy. Observing VLM behavior on a subset of the Pluralis surfaces recurring, locale-specific failure modes such as image misidentifications with downstream harm, missed item-context-locale interactions, and inadequate refusals. These failure modes vary systematically across locales and languages, exposing blind spots that globally averaged metrics conceal. Ultimately, Pluralis is not presented as a solved evaluation framework for cultural alignment, but rather as a first step and catalyst for future innovation. We call upon the research community to utilize this foundation to advance the science of multilingual, multicultural evaluation to better support AI cultural alignment globally.

Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision rules according to multiple authoritative priorities about how the rule should behave. We provide a formal model of such pluralistic preferences over decision rules, which then lets us identify two distinct failures of forced local pairwise comparison data. First, priorities such as proportionality, egalitarianism, and equal treatment are inherently global: what they imply in one case can depend on what happens elsewhere, so local comparisons may fail to capture them. Second, even when priorities are representable locally, tension between strongly-held priorities can generate internal conflict, producing potentially costly behavioral distortions when comparisons are forced. We then use our model to investigate the alternative -- allowing people to report indecision -- and our findings suggest that doing so can considerably reduce the number of queries needed to learn preferences accurately. We conclude by describing how our model points toward preference-learning methods that elicit these priorities directly, yielding more faithful and interpretable accounts of what people value.

LLMs stage a new form of cultural encounter that is massive, automated, and monolingual. Literary disciplines have always negotiated cultural struggles with comparative reading of literature, narratological and poetic analysis, critical theory, world literature, and translation. These tools have now become indispensable for building culturally literate AI. The essay develops a layered framework toward more nuanced textual models and pluralistic interpretations of AI, emphasizing the natural intersections of literature and AI development, connecting current debates in critical theory with structural monolingualism, and suggesting a new application of world literature approaches to address global AI textuality through macrostructure, circulation, and untranslatability.

Traditional visual data storytelling relies on binary graphics that depict two simplified groups in conflict. This can increase political polarization by oversimplifying intra-group disagreements and erasing ambiguity and shared ideas or values. This can inadvertently foster "us versus them" thinking. Intentional, pluralistic design choices for AI-enabled digital platforms can produce visualizations that emphasize nuance, opinion distribution, and intergroup commonalities. To demonstrate this potential, we examine deliberative technologies that map high-dimensional opinion spaces and highlight areas of both consensus and dissensus. The paper highlights the We the People deliberation conducted by Jigsaw and the Napolitan Institute in September 2025, which engaged over 2,400 Americans across all 435 congressional districts in an AI-supported, asynchronous dialogue regarding freedom and equality. By utilizing AI to synthesize long-form, text-based participant inputs into interactive "opinion landscapes," the initiative provided an alternative format for pluralistic data storytelling that humanized diverse viewpoints and revealed hidden areas of substantial broad consensus. The paper concludes that shifting from divisive, contrast-heavy visual frameworks to distribution-focused, interactive models represents a highly scalable, low-cost intervention capable of bridging perceptual gaps and cultivating a more resilient, collaborative democratic culture.

The paper explores how "culture" can be operationalised in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and what this reveals about the possibilities and limits of considering a plurality of cultural backgrounds in technological design. It proposes that cultural alignment cannot be achieved only by adding more examples of "other cultures", rather it requires plural epistemologies: allowing multiple, locally grounded ways of knowing. To analyze how this plurality of knowing can be addressed in NLP, the paper uses a socio-technical model of language technology (LT) design, the five layers of technological activity model, for collecting and systematizing approaches to culture in NLP. The analysis shows that while NLP research has made progress toward more culturally sensitive systems, many approaches remain partial, addressing "culture" primarily at the level of output or representation while leaving deeper questions of power, governance, and social context unresolved. The paper concludes that operationalising culture requires much more than technical adaptation; it suggests a reflexive and plural socio-technical approach that navigates potentials and limits of computational formalisation for accounting multiple linguistic and socio-cultural backgrounds.

AI pluralism is often framed as a problem of representing diverse values, preferences, users, or outputs. This paper argues that this framing is incomplete because AI systems also impose ontologies: they define what counts as an entity, relation, feature, harm, benefit, and valid form of evidence. We define ontological flattening as the conversion of situated, contested, and historically specific meanings into a restricted technical category, proxy, aggregation rule, or benchmark target that is treated as neutral and difficult to contest. The paper develops a bounded conceptual and qualitative synthesis across value pluralism, pluralistic alignment, participatory and democratic AI, procedural justice, science and technology studies, accountability research, aggregate themes from 11 expert interviews, and three urban AI companion cases. The cases illustrate how pluralistic methods can improve or structure model behavior while still compressing categories, proxies, aggregation rules, and revision rights before affected actors have procedural standing. We introduce Pluralistic Lifecycle Governance (PLG) as a preliminary qualitative audit scaffold for documenting ontological openness, epistemic inclusion, procedural authority, evaluation pluralism, and lifecycle accountability. PLG is not presented as a validated scoring instrument; it is a framework for making the evidence and governance conditions of pluralistic AI explicit.

We argue that aligning AI to aggregated human preferences is the wrong target. With current technology, one can train AIs to share the values of a Silicon Valley techno-optimist, a degrowth environmentalist, a national-conservative culture warrior, a single-party state cadre, or a devout religious traditionalist. We should not. Human values produce societies that thrive or fail on the merits of those values - from failed states and extreme inequality to declining happiness, political polarization, and government dysfunction in the world's wealthiest democracies. The pluralistic-alignment program correctly diagnoses that there is no single "humanity" to align with, but is dangerous if taken as the main directive. We argue that AI should be trained to a non-negotiable floor of objective alignment goals - competence, bounded by the constraints of factual accuracy, honesty, and lawfulness and that pluralism belongs at the surface (language, register, conventions, missing-context defaults) and across the wide band of legitimate value tradeoffs that respect the floor, but not at the level of values that violate it. We highlight the empirical reality of unfiltered pluralistic values, propose four commitments as a constructive alternative, and engage six credible objections: commercial pressure and practical feasibility, democratic legitimacy, regulatory compliance, over-reliance on institutionalist explanations, the charge that the floor itself is culturally laden, and the limits of Coherent Extrapolated Volition.

The growing need to represent diverse perspectives has increased interest in pluralistic LLM generation. Although difficult to operationalize, identifying perspectives expressed in text would provide clear guidance on pluralistic alignment and more clearly articulate the pluralistic gap in LLM generation. While models have been shown to reduce the diversity of training data and generate homogeneously, this has been demonstrated primarily on multiple-choice questionnaires or using high-level characteristics of free-form text. In this paper, we introduce and implement a domain-agnostic multi-layered framework for unsupervised extraction of perspectives suitable for identifying the pluralistic gap in LLM-generated text. We evaluate our framework on book reviews, a highly opinionated dataset representing diverse perspectives, and compare various prompts and models. Our results show that while some models and prompting techniques come close to covering a broad spectrum of perspectives, rarer perspectives remain disproportionately underrepresented, resulting in distributions that diverge from human text.

This study proposes the Behavioral Protocol Framework (BPF), an entropy-controlled pluralistic alignment framework designed to address two critical challenges in autonomous agent economies: the hivemind effect arising from excessive strategic convergence among agents and the lack of transparency in autonomous decision-making processes. The proposed BPF consists of three core modules: Mentalizing-based Social Intelligence (MbSI) grounded in Theory of Mind (ToM), Pluralistic Alignment (PA), and a Verifiable Execution Kernel (VEK). These modules are organically integrated within a closed-loop architecture that governs the entire lifecycle of agent behavior, from decision-making and execution to verification and feedback. To evaluate the proposed framework, a simulation environment implemented in Python and a Streamlit-based user interface will be developed. Through empirical experimentation, the study aims to examine whether the entropy-control mechanism of the PA module can effectively preserve strategic diversity among agents and mitigate collective convergence, while the VEK module provides a comprehensive and transparent audit trail of the decision-making process. The anticipated results are expected to demonstrate that the proposed framework can simultaneously enhance the stability, efficiency, and trustworthiness of autonomous agent economies. Consequently, this research offers a practical approach for developing robust, transparent, and accountable agent-native economic systems.

Culture is the most insidious vector of gradual human disempowerment by AI: unlike economic or political displacement, cultural displacement attacks the very preferences and values through which humans recognise and resist disempowerment itself. We argue that existing AI governance frameworks suffer from a critical blind spot by treating cultural impact as secondary to economic and safety concerns. This paper develops \emph{memetic capture} as a unifying concept for AI-driven cultural disempowerment, and proposes the \textbf{Cultural Pluralistic Governance Framework (CPGF)}, a four-tier policy architecture combining quantitative cultural influence metrics, democratic value assemblies, pluralistic deployment standards, and transnational coordination mechanisms. We argue that pluralism is not merely an ethical requirement for such governance but a structural necessity: monocultural AI governance accelerates the very disempowerment it claims to prevent. We identify concrete policy levers, discuss implementation tensions, and outline a research agenda at the intersection of pluralistic alignment and cultural AI governance.

Multicultural multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed in globally diverse settings, where different agents are grounded in different cultural backgrounds. Existing cultural evaluation focuses on value alignment: how closely a single agent matches a target culture. Yet alignment is a per-agent property and cannot reveal whether a system, taken as a whole, preserves the cultural plurality it is meant to represent. We propose value diversity as a system-level evaluation axis for multicultural agent systems, defined through the dissimilarity between culturally conditioned agents' responses on a shared value survey. Using the World Values Survey, we evaluate 19 cultures and 18 backbone models across a wide range of system configurations. We find that diversity is largely uncorrelated with alignment, indicating that the two capture complementary system properties, and that current multicultural agent systems fall substantially below human societies in value diversity. Mixed-backbone systems narrow this gap but do not close it, and the gap persists across culture compositions and agent scales. Social interaction further erodes diversity by driving agents toward consensus, and a participatory budgeting case study shows that this homogenization narrows the breadth of collective decision-making. Together, our results establish value diversity as a distinct evaluation axis for multicultural multi-agent systems and reveal a persistent homogenization tendency in current LLM-based societies. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/iNLP-Lab/MultiAgent-Diversity.

Safe global deployment of AI models requires alignment with human values that vary across cultures. Yet rater pools in safety evaluation datasets remain largely geographically homogeneous, failing to capture geo-cultural differences. Further, it remains unclear whether such differences persist after controlling for demographics such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Through a meta-analysis of safety datasets, we find that most do not report geo-cultural information, and those that do lack a unified methodology to jointly analyze geo-cultural and demographic correlates. Using the Inglehart-Welzel dimensions of cross-cultural variation, we demonstrate via multilevel modeling that cultural zone membership explains variance in safety ratings beyond standard demographics (p<0.05 across 6 datasets). Moreover, our analysis indicates that roughly 10% of items in the datasets we examined are culturally sensitive: likely to be misclassified as safe without adequate cultural representation. We evaluate LLMs as both rater surrogates and triage tools, finding that current LLMs do not reliably stand in for raters, though they can help prioritize culturally sensitive items for human annotation. Our findings motivate more culturally pluralistic safety evaluation and offer practical takeaways to support it.

Current alignment paradigms for generative artificial intelligence rely predominantly on monolithic benchmarking frameworks that reduce the plurality of human judgment to aggregated statistical baselines, thereby obscuring cultural, demographic, and contextual variability in evaluation. We introduce a state-space constrained emulation framework for AI evaluation that replaces singular assessment functions with a structured manifold of synthetic cognitive profiles representing diverse human perspectives. We show that modern generative architectures can instantiate and maintain these evaluative personas with high consistency, enabling a form of pluralistic, perspective-dependent benchmarking that more closely reflects real-world consensus variability. However, we further analyze the stability of these simulated evaluators under sequential inference and stochastic prompt perturbations, revealing systematic degradation in persona coherence that manifests as state-space drift and semantic inconsistency. These findings suggest that static alignment constraints are insufficient for sustaining robust evaluative behavior over time. Instead, we argue for the necessity of embedding dynamic, viability-driven regulatory mechanisms within generative systems to preserve coherent cognitive emulation. By framing persona-based evaluation as a structured dynamical system over latent representation manifolds, this study provides a foundation for more adaptive, human-aligned, and context-sensitive approaches to AI evaluation.

Critical decision-making in socially consequential spaces is increasingly involving AI systems at varying capacities. Yet, despite the ubiquity of autonomous systems, most approaches to handling autonomous moral decision-making resort to scalar or binary judgments. These methods are insufficient for acceptable moral reasoning, as they provide little explanation, leaving out imperative contextual and theoretical information that must be included to support accountability. For this, we propose a framework to model moral reasoning as a distribution over normative ethical theories or ethical pluralism. We introduce a normative ethics simplex that integrates these theories. A benchmark of 450 cases across 15 fine-grained subtheories was also prepared for the purposes of stacked ensemble learning. These cases describe ethical dilemmas in natural language and have associated extracted contextual features. The implementation of the simplex was achieved via a two-stream normative-semantic architecture. This is followed by the fusion of normative information and a sequential, stacking ensemble to learn the best fit of the three broad theories: consequentialism, virtue ethics, and deontology, and the 15 subcategories. Our experiments demonstrate that the integration of contextual and normative priors with the semantic embeddings significantly improves the performance of the classification, displaying an accuracy of 88.89%. We conducted ablation studies to show that structured ethical representations contribute beyond analogical reasoning, and the chosen stacking architecture gives the best results due to the gradual learning of granularity. Ethical pluralism is also analyzed through entropy, confidence, and visualization. Thus, modeling ethical pluralism as a probabilistic normative distribution supports human-like moral reasoning, ethical disagreement analysis, and future alignment in AI systems.

This position statement looks back on two decades of work on shallow embeddings of non-classical logics in classical higher-order logic (HOL), a line of research that expanded into a range of logic embeddings in HOL and inspired the LogiKEy logic-pluralistic knowledge representation and reasoning methodology. This paper advances the case for logical pluralism at object-logic level within a unifying meta-logical framework such as LogiKEy, grounding the argument in computational metaphysics. More broadly, it advocates principled support for logical pluralism in modern proof assistants, and cautions against logical imperialism -- the rigid adoption of a single foundational logic for large-scale theory developments -- which impedes the interdisciplinary reuse that LogiKEy is designed to enable.

Steerable pluralism requires a model to faithfully represent one specified perspective. Organizations are a natural setting for this demand, since they deploy LLMs to make decisions that must reflect their own policy. Yet, most existing work fixes that perspective at the level of individuals or demographic groups. We rely on a decision-policy capturing method to measure process alignment in organizational settings, assessing whether an LLM faithfully reproduces the organization's decision policy rather than merely reaching the same conclusions. We find heterogeneity along two axes. Across models, baseline alignment varies strongly and tracks neither pricing nor general benchmark performance. Across organizations, the structure of alignment changes. In ECHR Article 6 decisions, process alignment predicts output accuracy ($r = 0.85$, $p < .001$), and making the organization's past decision policy explicit improves poorly aligned models. In consumer credit decisions, process alignment is low overall but varies more than output accuracy, and the models resist adopting the organization's weighting of protected attributes. Because historical credit decisions encode potentially discriminatory patterns, higher alignment there is not always desirable. Process-level measurement is therefore necessary, and depending on whether the target policy is normatively desirable, the same procedure can calibrate or audit a model. Deciding which policy to align to, and whether higher alignment is feasible or desirable, makes organizational alignment a pluralistic problem in its own right.

Pluralistic alignment requires systems to adapt to diverse user values, communication styles, and contextual assumptions. We believe that a foundational prerequisite for such alignment enabling accurate preference elicitation from people when their intent is under-specified or ambiguous. We study the problem of preference elicitation in multi-turn question answering by decomposing the problem into two components: a \textbf{clarification policy}, which decides whether to ask a clarifying question or answer directly, and \textbf{post-clarification answering}, which produces the correct final answer once the missing information is provided. We show, using the PACIFIC benchmark, that supervised fine-tuning rapidly improves the clarification policy, however, final answer accuracy remains substantially lower even when the model takes the correct action. This gap indicates that understanding and correctly interpreting the user's response is the critical gap in multi-turn question-answering systems.

Despite the global deployment of text-to-image (T2I) models, their safety frameworks are largely calibrated to a Western-centric default, creating significant vulnerabilities for the rest of the world. To embrace cultural pluralism and bring historically under-represented perspectives in T2I safety, we conduct localised community-centered red teaming studies in the Global South. Our two-fold approach prioritizes localization and participation, by focusing on secondary urban centers in these regions, and conducting community engagement and training workshops to contextualize local norms. As a result, we present PLACES, a dataset comprising over 26,000 examples of T2I model failures collected in partnership with universities in Ghana, Nigeria, and two regions of India (Karnataka and Punjab). Analysis of prompts collected reveals a wide-ranging diversity in socio-cultural and linguistic attributes, when compared to existing geography-agnostic crowdsourced red-teaming data. We observe unique adversarial patterns enabled by local cultural and linguistic nuances, and distinct clusters within region around specific themes, such as religion in India. Moreover, we uncover structural contextual gaps in existing safety frameworks by identifying novel harms showing normative dissonance (e.g., violating religious norms, ignoring local customs, and ominous symbolism). This work argues that expanding T2I safety requires moving beyond mere scale to incorporate deeply localised, participatory methodologies for data collection and contextualization. Content warning: This paper includes examples containing potentially harmful or offensive content.

Medicine is inherently pluralistic. Principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice routinely conflict, and such ethical dilemmas often sharply divide reasonable physicians. Good clinical practice navigates these tensions in concert with each patient's values rather than imposing a single ethical stance. The ethical values that large language models bring to medical advice, however, have not been systematically examined. We present a framework for auditing value pluralism in medical AI, comprising a benchmark of clinician-verified dilemmas and an attribution method that recovers value priorities directly from decisions. The ecosystem of frontier models spans physician-level value heterogeneity, and models discuss competing values in their reasoning (Overton pluralism) before committing to a decision. However, individual model decisions are near-deterministic across repeated sampling and semantic variations, failing to reproduce the distributional pluralism of the physician panel. Across benchmark cases, these consistent decisions reflect committed, systematic value preferences. While most model priorities fall within the natural range of inter-physician variation, some significantly underweight patient autonomy. A single LLM deployed without regard for its value priorities could amplify those priorities at scale to every patient it serves. Without explicit efforts to balance ethical perspectives with one or multiple models, these tools risk replacing clinical pluralism with a deployment monoculture.

Social media are shifting towards pluralism -- community-governed platforms where groups define their own norms. What violates rules in one community may be perfectly acceptable in another. Can AI models help moderate such pluralistic communities? We formalize the task as a multiple-choice problem, mirroring how human moderators operate in the real world: given a comment and its surrounding context, identify which specific rule, if any, is violated. We introduce PluRule, a multimodal, multilingual benchmark for detecting 13,371 rule violations across 1,989 Reddit communities spanning 2,885 rules in 9 languages. Using this benchmark, we show that state-of-the-art vision-language models struggle significantly: even GPT-5.2 with high reasoning performs only slightly better than a trivial baseline. We also find that bigger models and increased context provide marginal gains, and universal rules like civility and self-promotion are easier to detect. Our results show that moderation of pluralistic communities on social media is a fundamental challenge for language models. Our code and benchmark are publicly available.

Pluralistic alignment is typically operationalised as preference aggregation: producing responses that span (Overton), steer toward (Steerable), or proportionally represent (Distributional) diverse human values. We argue that aggregation alone is an incomplete primitive for deployed pluralistic alignment. Under genuine value pluralism, the failure mode of contemporary RLHF-trained assistants is not insufficient coverage but sycophantic consensus: a learned tendency to agree with, validate, and minimise friction with the immediate interlocutor. Because deployed AI systems now mediate consequential deliberation across health, civic life, labour, and governance, the collapse of disagreement at the interaction layer is not a narrow technical concern but a structural failure with distributive consequences. We reframe pluralistic alignment around three conversational mechanisms drawn from Grice's maxims: scoping (acknowledging the limits of one's perspective), signalling (surfacing value-conflict rather than smoothing it over), and repair (revising one's position on principled grounds, not on user pressure). We formalise a metric, the Pluralistic Repair Score (PRS), distinguishing principled revision from capitulation, and present a small-scale empirical illustration on two frontier RLHF-trained models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, N=198; GPT-4o, N=100) showing that, for both, agreement-following coexists with low repair-quality on contested-value prompts. PRS measures an interactional precondition for pluralism (visible disagreement; principled revision) rather than pluralism in full; we discuss the difference, take seriously the reflexive question of whose "principled" counts, and argue that pluralism is most decisively made or unmade at the deployment-governance layer: interfaces, preference-data pipelines, and audit infrastructure.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on coarse-grained national labels for pluralistic value alignment. However, such macro-level supervision often obscures intra-country value heterogeneity, yielding a loose alignment. We argue that resolving this limitation requires shifting from national labels to multi-dimensional demographic constraints, which can identify groups with predictable, high-consensus value preference. To this end, we propose DVMap (High-Consensus Demographic-Value Mapping), a framework for fine-grained pluralistic value alignment. In this framework, we first present a demographic archetype extraction strategy to construct a high-quality value alignment corpus of 56,152 samples from the World Values Survey (WVS) by strictly retaining respondents with consistent value preferences under identical demographics. Over this corpus, we introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (CoT) mechanism that explicitly guides LLMs to reason about demographic-value correlations. Subsequently, we employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to achieve adaptive anchoring of value distributions. To rigorously evaluate generalization, we further establish a triple-generalization benchmark (spanning cross-demographic, cross-country, and cross-value) comprising 21,553 samples. Experimental results demonstrate that DVMap effectively learns the manifold mapping from demographics to values, exhibiting strong generalization and robustness. On cross-demographic tests, Qwen3-8B-DVMap achieves 48.6% accuracy, surpassing the advanced open-source LLM DeepSeek-v3.2 (45.1%). The source code and dataset are available at https://github.com/EnlightenedAI/DVMap.

Prevailing alignment methods target a fixed set of preferences and therefore risk forcing value lock-in as societal norms evolve over time. We introduce Adaptive Pluralistic Alignment (APA), a modular pipeline for updating pluralistically aligned AI systems to track evolving values and avoid value lock-in without repeating costly pretraining or large-scale data collection. APA has three stages: (1) learning compact personalized reward models via low-rank reward basis decomposition, (2) using these models as a jury that collectively selects among candidate outputs through social-choice-theoretic voting, and (3) efficiently adapting the jury over time by fitting new annotator weights over the fixed reward bases as values shift. The resulting system is efficient, explainable, steerable, and modular. We implement a proof-of-concept instantiation using the PRISM multi-user alignment dataset and simulated historical annotators, and provide preliminary analysis showing that jury composition and the choice of voting rule can substantially affect outcomes, particularly when jury preferences are heterogeneous. We provide full code and resulting preference datasets at https://github.com/RachelFreedman/apa.

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.

In measurement theory, instruments do not simply record reality; they help constitute what is observed. The same holds for generative AI evaluation: benchmarks do not just measure, they shape what models appear to be. Functionalist benchmarks treat models as isolated predictors, while prescriptive approaches assess what systems ought to be. Both obscure the sociotechnical processes through which meaning and values are enacted, risking the reification of narrow cultural perspectives in pluralist contexts. This thesis advances a descriptive alternative. It argues that generative AI must be evaluated as a pluralist sociotechnical system and develops Machine-Society-Human (MaSH) Loops, a framework for tracing how models, users, and institutions recursively co-construct meaning and values. Evaluation shifts from judging outputs to examining how values are enacted in interaction. Three contributions follow. Conceptually, MaSH Loops reframes evaluation as recursive, enactive process. Methodologically, the World Values Benchmark introduces a distributional approach grounded in World Values Survey data, structured prompt sets, and anchor-aware scoring. Empirically, the thesis demonstrates these through two cases: value drift in early GPT-3 and sociotechnical evaluation in real estate. A final chapter draws on participatory realism to argue that prompting and evaluation are constitutive interventions, not neutral observations. The thesis argues that static benchmarks are insufficient for generative AI. Responsible evaluation requires pluralist, process-oriented frameworks that make visible whose values are enacted. Evaluation is therefore a site of governance, shaping how AI systems are understood, deployed, and trusted.

Pluralism alignment with AI has the sophisticated and necessary goal of creating AI that can coexist with and serve morally multifaceted humanity. Research towards pluralism alignment has many efforts in enhancing the learning of large language models (LLMs) to accomplish pluralism. Although this is essential, the robustness of LLMs to produce moral content over pluralistic values is still under exploration.Inspired by the astonishing persuasion abilities via jailbreak prompts, we propose to leverage jailbreak attacks to study LLMs' internal pluralistic values. In detail, we develop a morality dataset with 10.3K instances in two categories: Value Ambiguity and Value Conflict. We further formalize four adversarial attacks with the constructed dataset, to manipulate LLMs' judgment over the morality questions. We evaluate both the large language models and guardrail models which are typically used in generative systems with flexible user input. Our experiment results show that there is a critical vulnerability of LLMs and guardrail models to these subtle and sophisticated moral-aware attacks.

Large language models are increasingly used to interpret politically contested questions, value-laden material on which there is no single correct answer, only competing interpretive traditions. We ask whether a model's choice among those traditions can turn on the language of the prompt rather than the content. Comparing two frontier models, ChatGPT 5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, on one contested Ukrainian civil-society document under semantically matched Russian and Ukrainian prompts, we find that both shift along the same axis on identical source text: Russian prompts elicit delegitimizing readings of the document's authors and Ukrainian prompts legitimating ones. The magnitude is model-dependent but neither model is neutral: each adopts a language-dependent stance, and the difference is one of degree. Because contested political questions admit no correct reading against which to measure, we read this as language-conditioned variation in which interpretive tradition a model activates: the model neither holds a single stance nor surfaces the plurality of available ones, but silently adopts the dominant frame of the prompt's language. We draw out the consequences for pluralism-aware evaluation, which must probe the same content across the languages a model serves, and for pluralistic alignment in multilingual settings.

Reward modeling is a key step in building safe foundation models when applying reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to align Large Language Models (LLMs). However, reward modeling based on the Bradley-Terry (BT) model assumes a global reward function, failing to capture the inherently diverse and heterogeneous human preferences. Hence, such oversimplification limits LLMs from supporting personalization and pluralistic alignment. Theoretically, we show that when human preferences follow a mixture distribution of diverse subgroups, a single BT model has an irreducible error. While existing solutions, such as multi-objective learning with fine-grained annotations, help address this issue, they are costly and constrained by predefined attributes, failing to fully capture the richness of human values. In this work, we introduce MiCRo, a two-stage framework that enhances personalized preference learning by leveraging large-scale binary preference datasets without requiring explicit fine-grained annotations. In the first stage, MiCRo introduces context-aware mixture modeling approach to capture diverse human preferences. In the second stage, MiCRo integrates an online routing strategy that dynamically adapts mixture weights based on specific context to resolve ambiguity, allowing for efficient and scalable preference adaptation with minimal additional supervision. Experiments on multiple preference datasets demonstrate that MiCRo effectively captures diverse human preferences and significantly improves downstream personalization.