Value Alignment

Quantizing deep neural networks is essential for efficient inference on resource-constrained devices. However, most existing methods are designed for single-domain and class-balanced data, leaving practical settings with domain shifts or severe class imbalance underexplored. We address these challenges with Efficient Multi-Domain Alignment Quantization (EmaQ), which aligns domain distributions through a CDF-based projection and uses sensitivity-aware weight aggregation to stabilize multi-domain quantization. We further extend EmaQ to EmaQ-LT for long-tailed quantization by introducing class-conditioned variance scaling and confidence-based logit adjustment to mitigate majority-class overconfidence. Theoretical analyses establish convergence guarantees and motivate the proposed sensitivity and scaling mechanisms. Experiments on standard, multi-domain (Office-31, Digits), and long-tailed (SynDigits-LT, CIFAR-10-LT, CIFAR-100-LT) benchmarks show that EmaQ and EmaQ-LT achieve strong low-bit performance under domain shift and class imbalance.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) struggle when applied to medical image-text data, yet the tools available to diagnose this failure remain limited. Existing representation alignment metrics are symmetric, collapsing both modalities into a single score and hiding which modality drives cross-modal degradation. We introduce the Spectral Alignment Score (SAS), an asymmetric metric that projects both modalities onto the principal eigenbasis of an anchor modality and computes eigenvalue-weighted per-eigenmode correlations, resulting in directional scores whose difference quantifies modality information imbalance. We embed SAS within a benchmarking framework evaluating 15 VLMs across natural and medical image-text datasets alongside 6 alignment metrics and bidirectional retrieval. Our experiments show that medical images retain richer structural information than their paired clinical reports, a directional asymmetry invisible to all competing metrics, and that SAS achieves the strongest zero-label correlation with retrieval performance in the medical domain, positioning it as a practical diagnostic tool for clinical deployment. Code is available at this URL: https://github.com/iamalegambetti/medical-vlms-assessment.

Helpful-only models, that is, models that are trained to always follow user intent, are valuable for dangerous capability evaluations and other areas of AI R&D where refusals would be an obstacle. Little is known about the generalization properties of helpful-only training: helpful-only models refuse less than their harmless counterparts, but previous work has not studied other dimensions of their alignment. We study the shortcomings of existing helpful-only models. We find that some show emergent misalignment, others have residual refusal behaviors, and most show poor steerability, sycophancy, and incoherent character. We show that simple anti-refusal training can cause many of these issues. None of these problems are necessary consequences of helpful-only training, though: we show that synthetic document fine-tuning and adding character-related questions to SFT and RL can mitigate them.

Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs) is fragile in part because it is often shallow: fine-tuning mainly reshapes the model's behavior near the first few output tokens. We argue that this phenomenon can be understood through autoregressive consistency, the tendency of next-token prediction to preserve and extend the current response trajectory consistently. By analyzing the learning dynamics of safety alignment, we show that autoregressive consistency can concentrate alignment updates on early tokens, offering a mechanistic explanation for shallow safety alignment. The same mechanism also predicts a broader class of attacks on LLMs: attacks that induce harmful continuation states at arbitrary positions in the output trajectory. As a concrete example, we introduce random insertion attack, which inserts a short harmful span into an otherwise safe refusal trajectory and exploits autoregressive consistency to sustain the resulting harmful branch, thereby bypassing safety alignment. Notably, a short harmful span can redirect the generation to be harmful even after a long refusal prefix, highlighting autoregressive consistency as a potential broader failure mechanism. This suggests that safety alignment should also break harmful autoregressive consistency throughout the output trajectory. We therefore propose adversarial safety alignment, an initial framework based on worst-case harmful continuation states, and instantiate it with random worst-insertion training. Overall, our results suggest that autoregressive consistency should be treated as a central consideration in both safety alignment and attack design.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has become the dominant approach for improving mathematical reasoning in large language models, yet current methods reduce each correct rollout to a single reward bit, ignoring the geometric structure shared among their hidden states. Investigating this structure, we find that at the anchor token (the position immediately before the answer marker), correct rollouts converge naturally because they must produce the same answer (cosine similarity ~0.84), yet each retains residual variance from its unique reasoning path. Encouraging full alignment at this point pushes the model to extract a unified "correct decision" representation, reducing sensitivity to which reasoning path was taken. Based on this observation, we propose Hidden-Align, an auxiliary loss function that aligns the last-layer hidden states of correct rollouts at the anchor token during RL training, with zero overhead in both training and inference. On eight mathematical reasoning benchmarks, Hidden-Align improves average pass@1 over the DAPO baseline by 3.8, 6.2, and 5.4 percentage points on Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 14B respectively, with consistent pass@k gains across all three scales, supported by ablations on loss type, anchor position, layer depth, and loss weight.

The language used by digital chat assistants such as ChatGPT can diverge from human expectations (misalignment). Research, mostly on Scientific English, has described both what divergences occur and, to some extent, why, linking them to the training stage of human preference learning. Yet, existing approaches rely on manual curation. This paper introduces two curation-free, assumption-light evaluation metrics: the Lexical Alignment Score, which identifies lexical overuse, and the Triangulated Preference Shift, which quantifies how much of such shifts can be attributed to human preference learning. Using PubMed abstracts, continuations were generated and measured using windowed document prevalence across six model families (Falcon, Gemma, Llama, Mistral, OLMo, Yi). The procedure identifies, without manual intervention, overused items such as 'suggest', 'additionally', and 'strategy', and estimates their link to preference learning. Our findings replicate prior work and remain stable across parameter settings, random seeds, and evaluation on further data. The approach scales readily and enables systematic study of lexical (mis)alignment beyond Scientific English and across languages, and as such, the metrics have the potential to contribute to improved alignment for future models and understanding of its origins.

Aligning AI systems with diverse human values requires value specifications grounded in concrete examples, but generating such examples without extensive human supervision remains an open challenge. We investigate what makes these examples effective, using Internal Coherence Maximization (ICM) -- which infers labels by maximizing their mutual predictability -- to generate persona-specific examples that steer a model toward a target group's values, without human supervision. Across four benchmarks spanning classification, preference, and open-ended generation, ICM-inferred in-context examples match the performance of gold labels. Crucially, coherence matters beyond individual label accuracy: with accuracy held constant, more coherent examples generalize substantially better than incoherent ones. For personas underrepresented in pretraining data, targeted human feedback on the questions where the model is least certain about a persona's values yields better generalization than the same number of labels on arbitrary questions. These results identify coherence as a key design principle for scalable value specification, leveraging the diverse human perspectives already encoded in pretrained language models.

Understanding how structured internal structure emerges during neural network training is central to the study of deep learning. We investigate this phenomenon through the group composition task, where a two-layer neural network is trained to predict $g_1 \star g_2$ for elements of a finite group $G$. By lifting the projected gradient flow to the Fourier domain, we demonstrate that the training dynamics are governed by a Riemannian gradient ascent on a representation-theoretic energy functional. We prove that, under random initialization, this flow drives each neuron to converge almost surely toward a single irreducible representation, while the cross-layer Fourier coefficients achieve a rotational rank-one alignment. This framework provides a representation-theoretic account of feature learning and characterizes a novel low-rank compression phenomenon for matrix-valued group representations. Moreover, for Abelian groups, we provide a complete population-level description: random initialization promotes uniform diversification across nontrivial representations and induces Haar-uniform phases, jointly approximating the indicator via a majority-vote mechanism. We further prove that both phase alignment and representation competition emerge with exponential convergence rates.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in sustainability-related decision support, reporting, and public communication, yet little systematic evidence exists on the environmental attitudes embedded in their outputs. This paper develops a benchmark for evaluating environmental cognition, affect, and behavioural recommendations in LLMs and applies it to 31 widely used proprietary and open-weight models. Drawing on questions from established environmental awareness surveys and additional sustainability-related behavioural measures, we compare LLM responses 1) among models and 2) between models and human survey benchmarks from Germany. We assess their robustness across prompting conditions. We find that many LLMs align more closely with environmentally progressive attitudes than the average survey respondent, exhibiting higher levels of environmental affect and cognition and recommending behaviours associated with substantial potential CO2 reductions. At the same time, we observe no systematic relationship between sustainability-oriented responses and model origin, size, or release context. However, models exhibit contextual sensitivity, controlled by persona-based prompting and show sycophantic shifts mirroring user-specified ideological positions, which raises concerns about steerability and normative reliability in real-world deployments. Our findings provide a reusable evaluation framework for assessing sustainability-related value alignment in LLMs and highlight the importance of governance, transparency, and critical oversight as AI systems become increasingly embedded in sustainability transformations and public decision-making.

Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human values often degrades their general capabilities, termed the alignment tax. Existing methods mitigate this by balancing dual objectives, which heavily rely on massive general-purpose data or auxiliary reward models. In this paper, we argue that, because safety features are inherently sparse within the output distribution, alignment requires localized modifications rather than global trade-offs. To this end, we propose SafeSteer, which performs on-policy distillation confined to safety tokens. First, we construct a safety teacher via activation steering. Based on this teacher, we develop a safety token selection algorithm. Consequently, SafeSteer restricts the reverse KL penalty to these tokens during training to preserve general capabilities. Experimental results across diverse models show that our SafeSteer achieves a superior trade-off between safety and general capability compared with existing methods, attaining strong safety performance on seven safety benchmarks with only minimal degradation on five general capability benchmarks. Notably, SafeSteer requires only 100 harmful samples without using any general-purpose data, less than 1% of what previous baselines used, considerably reducing alignment cost. More details are on our project page at https://anjingkun.github.io/SafeSteer.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse domains, yet personalizing their outputs to individual users remains an open challenge. Existing approaches predominantly adopt a flat behavioral paradigm, aggregating user behaviors without an explicit account of how they are organized into deeper behavioral structures. In this work, we draw on Pierre Bourdieu's Theory of Practice to propose PHF (Practice-Habitus-Field), a sociologically grounded framework that reconceptualizes LLM personalization through three hierarchical levels: individual behaviors as practices, their temporal accumulation into stable dispositions as habitus, and shared regularities across similar users as fields. We instantiate PHF through $\mathrm{PHF}_{\text{Compass}}$, a lightweight and model-agnostic implementation based on a frozen LLM. Experiments on the Language Model Personalization (LaMP) benchmark demonstrate consistent improvements across diverse tasks, while further analyses validate the interpretability and extensibility of the learned behavioral structures.

Personalized large language models adapt responses to users' preferences and social attributes, but can introduce substantial universal truth inconsistencies across social groups, where some groups systematically receive less accurate responses on objective tasks. Existing alignment methods either ignore personalization or mainly focus on subjective preference alignment, largely overlooking fairness and consistency in universal truths. To address this gap, we study Truth-Invariant Alignment (TIA), an alignment problem for personalized LLMs that aims to ensure universal truths remain consistent across social groups while preserving personalization. We propose TriAlign, the first offline multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) framework for TIA, where each social group is modeled as an agent interacting. TriAlign jointly optimizes universal truth accuracy, cross-group truth consistency, and personalization through a fairness-aware objective and an explicit inconsistency penalty. Experiments across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that TriAlign achieves a stronger balance among these three objectives than strong baselines, reducing universal truth disparities across social groups while improving both objective task performance and personalization quality.

The choice between cross-attention and concatenation for multimodal fusion remains governed by practitioner intuition rather than principled understanding. In this paper, we demonstrate that feature alignment quality, not data scale alone, is the primary determinant of which fusion strategy excels. Through controlled experiments on Flickr8k using two feature extraction backbones (ResNet18 and CLIP ViT-B/32), we show that concatenation outperforms cross-attention by 4.1-5.1 percentage points across all tested scales (2048-16384 samples) when features are pre-aligned by a vision-language pretraining objective. We provide a theoretical explanation grounded in sample complexity analysis: concatenation requires O(d_v + d_t) samples to learn its fusion projection, while cross-attention requires O(d_v * d_t) samples to learn bilinear attention weights, over 256 times as many for 512-dimensional CLIP features. When features are already aligned, the approximation error gap between the two methods vanishes, and concatenation's sample efficiency dominates at all practical dataset sizes. An alignment degradation study confirms a monotonic trend: as feature alignment degrades, concatenation's advantage grows from 1.3% to 2.8%. These findings provide a principled decision framework for fusion method selection in multimodal systems, with direct implications for the design of Multimodal Large Language Models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used with formal interactive theorem provers such as Lean 4. Scaling these systems with reinforcement learning or search methods requires process reward models (PRMs) that can evaluate intermediate reasoning steps. Existing reward-model designs expose a practical trade-off. Value-head models provide continuous scores but modify the generative model interface, while generative reward models preserve textual rationales but are poorly matched to continuous floating-point regression because numeric values are split across tokens. We introduce Expected Value Alignment (EVA), a reward-modeling procedure that keeps the surface output discrete while extracting continuous scores from the model's token distribution. The model emits integer scores in a structured JSON format, and EVA computes a continuous score as the expectation over the logits of the corresponding anchor tokens. Training combines the causal language modeling objective with an auxiliary mean squared error loss on these expected values. We instantiate EVA in \textit{Leibniz}, a reward model for Lean 4 formal verification, and evaluate it against zero-shot and reward-modeling baselines. The evaluation demonstrates that continuous logit-based scoring significantly reduces discretization artifacts while retaining the interpretability of generative critiques.

Preference alignment has substantially improved the observable behavior of large language models, yet it remains unclear what alignment changes internally. Aligned systems still fail under jailbreaks, prompt injection, and retrieval-time corruption, suggesting behavior-level evaluation alone is incomplete. Post-training should leave measurable traces in internal computation. We ask: when an instruction-tuned (IT) model becomes a preference-aligned (PA) model, what geometric structure changes, where do those changes concentrate, and how selectively do they vary across concepts, prompts, and model families? We introduce MENTIS, a geometry-first framework for measuring alignment-induced internal reorganization in paired checkpoints. MENTIS compares IT and PA models using a primary layerwise covariance-based torsion norm (T1), a secondary spectral torsion diagnostic (T2), and an Energy-Radiance-Activation measure (ERA) for depth localization. Across four 7-8B model pairs on LITMUS, our study reveals that alignment-induced change is selective rather than uniform: normative concepts exhibit larger torsion shifts than factual concepts on average; torsion is negatively correlated with contextual entropy; and peak effects localize to architecture-specific mid-to-late layers. The same pattern appears across word-level, prompt-level, and model-level analyses. These results suggest preference alignment leaves structured, depth-localized geometric signatures in internal computation beyond what behavior-level evaluation alone can reveal.

Emergent misalignment (EM) occurs when narrow finetuning causes a model to behave dangerously outside the finetuning task. Standard training signals can miss this shift, making reliable detection costly if it depends on repeated behavioral evaluation. We ask whether emergent misalignment can instead be detected from internal representations during finetuning. Using seven alignment-relevant traits encoded as linear directions in activation space, we track representational drift across training checkpoints in four open-source 7-9B LLMs. EM-relevant drift concentrates on a low-dimensional axis that explains 65.5% of the variance, revealing a geometric signature in the studied regime. A low-overhead monitor built on this drift profile detects dangerous checkpoints with 2.2% false negative rate, 2.9% false positive rate, and 0.990 AUROC on held-out perturbation types, outperforming unsupervised PCA and SAE baselines. Stress tests on two 14B models, longer finetuning runs, and misaligned starting points identify key deployment boundaries. These results position trait-space monitoring as a practical complement to behavioral evaluation for EM detection during LoRA-based finetuning, while showing that deployment across substantially different regimes may require recalibration.

Users increasingly face the challenge of selecting an appropriate LLM for a given task from a rapidly growing pool of LLMs, each with distinct but often opaque latent properties. Compounding this challenge, users may lack the vocabulary or awareness to explicitly articulate the characteristics they value in an LLM's responses or deployment. We propose an interaction-efficient active learning framework in which a dueling bandit algorithm iteratively selects pairs of LLMs, collects user feedback about their responses, and updates its belief about the user's latent preferences. We introduce a novel belief-aware upper confidence bound strategy that balances exploration of the model pool with exploitation of inferred preferences, enabling efficient alignment between user needs and LLM capabilities under user-specified cost and time budgets. Through diverse experiments on LLMs and human studies, we experimentally verify that our model can efficiently match well-aligned LLMs to users at a lower cost.

Adversarial Training (AT) is a leading defense against adversarial examples but often suffers from Catastrophic Overfitting (CO) in efficient single-step variants, where robustness to multi-step attacks collapses despite high single-step performance. We address this failure mode with two contributions. First, we formalize Epsilon Overfitting (EO), a perspective in which fixed perturbation magnitudes and directions exacerbate CO, and show that introducing perturbation variability significantly improves robust generalization across different architectures and datasets. Second, we propose PertAlign (Perturbation Alignment), a theoretically grounded, computationally negligible metric that predicts CO onset by measuring gradient alignment across attack stages. Leveraging these insights, we introduce SORA, an adaptive step-size AT method that dynamically adjusts perturbations based on loss surface geometry. SORA consistently prevents CO, achieves state-of-the-art robustness and clean accuracy, and generalizes across datasets and architectures using a single fixed set of hyperparameters, which is essential for applicability in fast AT. Extensive experiments on diverse datasets and architectures show that SORA matches or surpasses the robustness of prior methods while delivering higher clean accuracy and superior efficiency. Code is available at https://github.com/SecondOrderAT/SORA.

The prevailing paradigm in large language model (LLM) alignment operates via erasure, filtering unsafe data or training models to strictly refuse harmful prompts. While effective at reducing immediate toxicity, this approach fundamentally constricts the model's epistemological scope, resulting in over-cautious systems that output uninformative blanket refusals to sensitive yet benign queries. In this work, we challenge the orthodoxy that unsafe data must be discarded. We propose a dialectical approach to alignment, positing that unsafe data encodes rich, domain specific knowledge critical for nuanced, safe, and informative generation. To operationalize this, we introduce SafeMoE, a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) framework that isolates unsafe knowledge into domain-specific Low-Rank Adapters (LoRA experts) trained exclusively on harmful corpora. To synthesize safety from these unsafe primitives, we train a lightweight gating network using a minimal, highly curated set of safe-informative responses. During inference, this router dynamically orchestrates the unsafe experts, effectively steering the generation trajectory to harness their deep domain knowledge while strictly enforcing safety constraints. Extensive empirical evaluations across stringent safety benchmarks demonstrate that SafeMoE is not only safer, achieving over a 20% relative improvement in safe response rate (more than a 15% absolute gain), but also produces more informative responses when safety and harmfulness are of paramount concern. Furthermore, the routing mechanism exhibits strong zero-shot generalization to unseen domains and broader safety tasks without domain-specific supervision. Our findings suggest a paradigm shift in alignment: true safety requires not the masking of unsafe knowledge, but its controlled integration.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures scale Large Language Models (LLMs) efficiently, enabling greater capacity with reduced computational cost by dynamically routing inputs to relevant experts, yet introduce a critical vulnerability: Safety Sparsity, where safety capabilities concentrate in few experts, making them susceptible to adversarial bypassing. Meanwhile, conventional alignment methods uniformly adapt all parameters, ignoring their functional differences and inadvertently degrading performances. To address these challenges, we propose MESA (MoE Safety Alignment), a targeted alignment framework for MoE-based LLMs that strategically decentralizes safety responsibility to maximize coverage while minimizing interference with utility. Based on Optimal Transport (OT) theory, MESA operates through two mechanisms: (1) Expert Capacity Reallocation uses a transport cost matrix to distribute safety duties to the most cost-effective experts, and (2) Dynamic Routing Refinement constrains the router to precisely activate these decentralized modules. Experiments show that MESA achieves robust defensive performance against varied harmful benchmarks while preserving helpfulness. Code is available at https://github.com/lorraine021/MESA.

Various language domains have undergone remarkable changes in recent years; these shifts are largely attributed to the advent of Large Language Models and their misalignment with natural language usage. These misalignments are thought to partly originate in the preference-learning stage, e.g. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, which generally makes models more useful but simultaneously may introduce systematic lexical bias. In terms of lexical behavior, this is visible in a model's preference for certain formats or the overuse of words (delve, furthermore), even when such patterns are not present in base model outputs. Research on lexical misalignment induced during preference training is constrained by reliance on manual curation. We address this, by introducing the Triangulated Preference Shift score, a metric that triangulates between human gold standards, base models, and instruct variants to isolate shifts induced specifically by preference learning, without manual curation. We provide data across six model families, anchor the results in the literature, and illustrate the general approach's utility by analyzing whether preference learning shifts models toward what could be interpreted as a "language of prestige". The metric provides an initial automated method to quantify behavioral shifts attributable to preference tuning, and thus, may help inform model alignment and development of trustworthy AI.

Emergent misalignment (EM) is the surprising tendency of language models to become broadly misaligned after fine-tuning on narrowly misaligned examples. While EM has been extensively studied in the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) setting, evidence that it also arises from reinforcement learning (RL) is limited to large, closed-source models, leaving the phenomenon expensive to study and difficult to reproduce. We characterize EM from RL in small, off-the-shelf open-weight models along three axes. First, we show that rewarding narrow, overtly misaligned behavior produces substantially higher general-domain misalignment than sample-matched SFT. Second, we show that EM from RL can be induced by reward signals that could plausibly arise naturally, such as unpopular aesthetic preferences or poor rhetorical appeals. Third, we evaluate in-training mitigations developed for SFT-induced EM and find that they broadly transfer, with preventive steering with persona vectors, interleaving safety data and inoculation prompting all performing well.

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.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as collaborative partners, human--AI alignment is often evaluated through explicit task success, accuracy, or reward optimization. Yet many collaborative settings depend on tacit understanding: whether an agent can align with a human's evaluative stance or representational priors without clear objectives, communication, or feedback. To study this capacity, we develop a spectrum-placement task inspired by the social party game Wavelength, in which humans and agents independently place concepts along subjective spectra. We operationalize the Tacit Understanding Index (TUX) as a pairwise behavioral measure of similarity between human and agent judgments, and evaluate it with 241 human participants and 200 profile-conditioned LLM agents across four models. We find that nearest human--agent pairs in trait space achieve significantly higher TUX, suggesting that tacit alignment is associated with person-level characteristics rather than reflecting only random similarity. Regression analyses show that TUX becomes more explainable as predictor sets become richer, with individual traits, decision-making styles, and confidence improving over aggregate trait-distance baselines. These findings suggest that TUX provides a measurable behavioral signal of human--LLM tacit understanding, while revealing the limits of profile-based conditioning for capturing deeper representational alignment.

Hallucination remains one of the key challenges undermining the reliability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). But what makes an LVLM hallucinate less? Many existing efforts focus on improving internal components of the model. We argue that hallucination fundamentally stems from how the model architecture is designed. To investigate this, we factor the architecture design into three dimensions: Linguistic Foundation (LF), Visual Representation (VR), and Semantic Alignment (SA), and categorize hallucinations into Co-occurrence, Similarity, and previously overlooked Uncertainty types. Building on this formulation, we propose CoSimUE, a benchmark that creates fine-grained hallucination scenarios through controlled textual perturbations and random perturbations, enabling mapping between design choices and hallucination behaviors. Experiments across 7 design aspects show that: 1) the widely emphasized scaling of model parameters has only limited impact on reducing all three types of hallucinations; 2) larger and better-trained language foundations can reduce co-occurrence hallucinations; 3) stronger visual encoders and higher resolutions mitigate similarity errors; 4) effective alignment strategies alleviate uncertainty hallucinations. 5) Furthermore, cross-dimensional analysis reveals that jointly enhancing visual fidelity and alignment quality yields the most comprehensive improvements. This study provides the first systematic exploration linking architecture-level design to hallucination robustness, offering practical guidance for developing reliable and efficient LVLMs.

Pairwise preference data is widely used in language-model evaluation and alignment, often for model ranking, reward modeling, or preference optimization. This note formulates a more basic measurement question: given a reference distribution of pairwise preferences, what model-level quantity is estimated when we test whether a model ranks preferred responses above rejected responses? We define pairwise reference alignment as an ordinal observable induced by a model scoring function. Given a reference pair distribution $P_{\mathrm{pair}}$ over triples $(x,y^+,y^-)$, and a scalar model score $S_M(x,y)$, we define the alignment observable as the probability that the model-induced ordering agrees with the reference preference ordering. We further define a centered order-parameter-like statistic and discuss a margin-based extension. The resulting quantities admit simple finite-sample estimators and concentration bounds under independent sampling assumptions. This note does not introduce a new benchmark. It provides a conceptual and statistical formulation for pairwise reference alignment, clarifies the role of the reference pair distribution, and distinguishes the general ordinal observable from scoring choices such as normalized log-probability or energy-based scores. We also provide an initial empirical study on Qwen2.5 models and RewardBench, where the proposed statistics increase with model size and instruction tuning and vary across reference-pair subsets as predicted by the formulation.

Peer review is central to scientific quality control, yet it can undervalue papers that later achieve substantial citation impact. While frontier large language models have shown promise in automating aspects of peer review, they primarily mimic human reviewer preferences rather than predict long-term scientific value. We introduce ReviewGuard, a two-stage framework that aligns LLM-generated reviews with citation-based estimates of long-term scientific impact rather than contemporaneous reviewer judgments. On 20,861 AI/ML papers from OpenReview augmented with Semantic Scholar citation data, ReviewGuard achieves a Spearman correlation of \r{ho} = 0.776 with future citations on rejected-then-published papers, outperforming human reviewers (\r{ho} = 0.492) and a supervised Expert model (\r{ho} = 0.681). Under the same decision threshold, ReviewGuard flags 10.2% of high-impact rejected papers, compared with 1.8% for human reviewers, corresponding to a 5.6x improvement. Our results demonstrate that impact-aligned reinforcement learning can provide editors with a complementary signal for identifying high-potential work, without replacing human judgment.

Geometry-aware generative models and novel view synthesis approaches have shown strong potential in visual fidelity and consistency. In parallel, equivariant representation learning has emerged as a powerful framework for constructing latent spaces where analytically known group transformations could act directly, capturing geometric structure in data and enhancing both interpretability and generalization in novel view synthesis. However, we identify that existing approaches often suffer from latent misalignment, a discrepancy between the intended group action and the actually required transformations in the latent space. Consequently, the learned latents often fail to consistently preserve the equivariant relations imposed by the underlying group symmetry. To address this, we propose Residual Latent Flow, a flow-based framework that corrects the misaligned latents, thereby improving compliance with the underlying equivariance relation. Our comprehensive experiments show that our method significantly reduces latent misalignment and improves novel view synthesis quality, under rotation groups SO(n).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by capability-oriented or traditional safety evaluations. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a framework for evaluating whether LLMs align with user welfare in social interactions, including whether they encourage harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 user inputs and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 22 recent LLMs, we find that even the strongest models, Claude-Opus-4.7 and GPT-5.5, violate 30.7% and 27.2% of checks, respectively. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting that these failures are persistent social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone.

We introduce Rationalize, a role-pair framework for shared semantic reasoning between humans and AI models in data-driven sensemaking. Building on ideas in human-machine teaming and critical thinking, we conceptualize human-AI interaction as a series of complementary role pairs (Explorer-Guide, Investigator-Informant, Teacher-Student, Judge-Advocate) operating in a shared reasoning space. In this space, human analysts and AI models (such as LLMs) make purposes, questions, assumptions, evidence, inferences, and implications explicit, facilitating alignment not only at the output level but at the level of rationalization of intent and action by each side. We relate these role pairs to the bidirectional human-AI alignment framework, illustrating how "aligning AI to humans" and "aligning humans to AI" differ by role, and sketch a collaborative research agenda for alignment design and assessment using element-level and role-specific approaches.

Aligned language models often exhibit a recognizable AI-like style, yet its connection to post-training and internal representations remains poorly understood. In this work, we study whether post-training introduces or amplifies AI-like stylistic regularities and whether these regularities have a localized internal signature. To this end, we compare human text, base-model generations, and aligned-model generations under matched human-source prefixes. Aligned generations show lower human-corpus affinity and higher AI-detection rates than base generations, suggesting that post-training shifts generated text away from human-corpus style and toward detector-visible AI-like text. We then introduce PASTA (Post-training Alignment Signature Targeted Ablation), a training-free method that estimates a post-training alignment signature from aligned-base residual contrasts and ablates the corresponding direction during decoding. Across 11 aligned models and 6 AI detectors, PASTA lowers the detection rate for most aligned models; this effect transfers well across detectors and is not reproduced by random directions. Qualitative analysis suggests that PASTA generations remain relevant and coherent while exhibiting greater stylistic variation. Together, these results show that AI-like stylistic effects of post-training can be measured, localized, and causally tested through activation ablation.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) typically relies on static reward models to align Large Language Models with human preferences. However, human values are inherently diverse and heterogeneous, and a single reward model often lacks the robustness required to generalize to unseen preference domains. While existing multi-reward frameworks attempt to address this, they are often restricted to a fixed set of known domains and fail to adapt to unseen human distributions without costly retraining. In this work, we propose In-Context Reward Adaptation, a transformer-based framework designed to model diverse and unseen human preferences on the fly. By leveraging the in-context learning capabilities of transformers, our approach adaptively infers the underlying reward structure from a small set of preference demonstrations. We demonstrate that while a standard transformer architecture is insufficient for this task by characterizing an asymptotic bias to the ground-truth, incorporating human response time as an auxiliary input signal enables the model to successfully adapt to preferences from previously unseen domains. Our findings show that this approach provides a more robust foundation for preference modeling, allowing for the representation of heterogeneous rewards and preference distribution shift, and offering a scalable path toward more flexible human-AI alignment.

We introduce Gram, an automated alignment auditing framework to assess the propensity of AI agents to engage in sabotage. We evaluate Gemini models across 17 simulated agentic deployment scenarios that incentivize sabotage. We find Gemini models misbehave in about 2-3% of our simulated trajectories. Many of these cases are explained by "overeagerness" in Gemini models resulting in both excessive role-playing and goal-seeking behavior. In contrast to other alignment auditing approaches, Gram is designed to specifically evaluate misalignment and intentional sabotage in agentic coding and research agents. We additionally introduce an experimental investigator agent pipeline which enables fine-grained targeted experiments to identify the drivers of misbehavior. We find that increasing realism of environments and removing nudges to misbehave tends to reduce sabotage rates close to zero.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

Many open-ended instructions have multiple valid answers that users can benefit from seeing, but post-training often narrows an LLM's output space toward a small set of canonical responses. We introduce REDIPO, an offline DPO data-construction pipeline for recovering distinct valid answer modes while preserving the alignment benefits of the instruct model. For each prompt, REDIPO samples responses from both base and instruct models, rewrites base-model responses with the instruct model, filters candidates for safety and instruction-following quality, and builds preference pairs that favor marginally diverse responses among candidates with similar instruction-following reward. Across Qwen3-4B, OLMo-3-7B, and LLaMA-3.1-8B, REDIPO improves NoveltyBench distinct_k by 134%, 33%, and 44% relative to the instruct checkpoints, while DivPO changes diversity by 0%, -6%, and -4% on the same models. These gains largely maintain MTBench, IFEval, and Arena-Hard performance, and reduce direct-category HarmBench attack success rate. Ablations show that marginal-diversity pair selection and base-response rewriting drive the diversity gains, while filtering and quality-bounded pairing help maintain alignment. Overall, our results show that diverse valid answers from base-model generations can be reintroduced through carefully constructed preference data while retaining the alignment benefits of post-training. We release our code and data at https://github.com/vsamuel2003/ReDiPO.

Multimodal alignment of histopathology encoders with transcriptomic and genomic data has been shown to significantly improve performance in downstream diagnostic tasks. Hematological cytology is unique in that visual single-cell evaluation is often paired with cytogenetics and molecular genetics for blood cancer diagnosis. In this study, we present a framework to align single white blood cell images with chromosomal aberrations (karyotype) and somatic mutations from targeted gene panels. Our training strategy follows a two-stage approach: (i) self-supervised, vision-only pretraining of a transformer aggregator using an iBOT head on a cohort of over 1500 patients, and (ii) genetic alignment via supervised contrastive loss on acute myeloid leukemia patients. Our genetically aligned patient encoder improves hematological diagnostic tasks, outperforming slide-level histopathology foundation models. Additionally, the model provides off-the-shelf retrieval capabilities for diseases and genetic alterations. Incorporating genetic data into patient encoders increases the quality of patient representations, providing a framework that aligns with clinical diagnostic workflows and paves the way for future multimodal hematology-specific AI. The code and model weights are available at https://github.com/marrlab/GenBloom.

Modern societies possess more information than ever before, yet they do not converge toward a single shared understanding. The same events, facts, laws, technologies, or risks can be interpreted as evidence of freedom, danger, exclusion, injustice, responsibility, or unrealized possibility. Existing discussions often treat such disagreement as a conflict of values, preferences, or beliefs. This paper argues that disagreement is already a late-stage phenomenon. The central premise is simple but not trivial: observation is not yet inference. Not every observation becomes inferentially relevant, and not every possible object in an observation sequence becomes an estimation target. A possible target becomes admissible only when a state representation can be constructed that is approximately sufficient for prediction, evaluation, or action with respect to that target. This paper develops a world-model theory of cognitive diversity and alignment by reconstructing recognition as the construction of such approximate sufficient statistics under finite informational, representational, observational, and action constraints. It formulates this position as the Multi-Phase Inference Assumption (MIA) and defines its core internal mechanism as the Multi-Phase Inference Mechanism (MIM). The framework introduces alignment maps and transformation loss to analyze how heterogeneous world models communicate without being collapsed into a single representation. World-model alignment is therefore processability, not agreement: the design of AI systems that help heterogeneous forms of intelligence remain mutually processable while preserving their distinct error-detection capacities.

Existing methods in Multimodal Knowledge Editing (MKE) have advanced the ability to correct outdated or inaccurate knowledge in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). However, they exhibit a critical limitation: while effectively modifying target factual pairs, they fail to generalize edits to logically related queries and often cause unintended alterations to unrelated but visually or semantically linked information. We identify and formalize two underlying failure modes causing this issue: Causal Misalignment, which confines edits to the specific sample, and Feature Entanglement, which causes unintended alterations to coupled but irrelevant information. To address these issues, we propose Localized and Disentangled Knowledge Editing (LDKE), a new framework that achieves precise and generalized editing by localizing fact-specific model layers and disentangling target-relevant inputs from irrelevant ones. Our approach introduces a Fast Localization module to identify and update critical layers efficiently, along with a Disentanglement Classifier that routes inputs appropriately to preserve unrelated knowledge. Extensive experiments across various benchmarks and MLLMs demonstrate that LDKE achieves superior performance in propagating edits to related contexts while maintaining high locality.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can convincingly simulate personas in explicit self-reports, they often deviate in implicit behavioral decisions, revealing a substantial Knowledge-Decision Gap ($G_{\mathrm{KD}}$). Existing benchmarks struggle to measure this discrepancy due to limited construct validity, multidimensional entanglement, and distributional biases in LLM-based evaluation. To address these issues, we propose ActTraitBench, a human-grounded evaluation framework for measuring personality consistency in LLMs. Grounded in empirical human data, ActTraitBench establishes one-to-one mappings between psychometric facets and behavioral paradigms and applies Distributional Calibration via Quantile Mapping to reduce distributional mismatch between LLM-judge scores and human responses. Experiments on 14 mainstream LLMs reveal substantial knowledge-decision gaps and show that assigned personas are reflected more consistently in self-reports than in behavioral decisions for most evaluated models. To mitigate this gap, we further introduce the Chain of Cognitive Alignment (CoCA), an inference-time intervention that reduces $G_{\mathrm{KD}}$ for 12 of the 13 models with paired results. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/Selina233/ActTraitBench.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as CLIP demonstrate strong zero-shot generalization, but their performance significantly degrades in cross-domain scenarios with scarce target-domain training data (Cross-Domain Few-Shot Learning, CDFSL). In this paper, we focus on the target-domain few-shot finetuning in the CLIP-based CDFSL task. Prevailing finetuning paradigms uniformly align all image patch tokens with their corresponding textual embeddings. However, we find a counterintuitive phenomenon: actively pushing away certain low-similarity image tokens, termed "tail tokens", from their textual embeddings consistently improves target-domain performance. We delve into this phenomenon and provide a novel interpretation: under great domain shifts and scarce training data, the model can hardly extract semantic information from visual inputs; therefore, the common belief of alignment is valid only for tokens already containing sufficient semantic information; for tail tokens, forcing the alignment would lead to excessive overfitting to the scarce training, while breaking the alignment is more useful. Motivated by this, we propose Adaptive Tail-Head Alignment (ATHA), a novel fine-tuning strategy for CLIP that transforms the conventional uniform alignment paradigm to an adaptive alignment paradigm, with both alignment strengthening and weakening. Extensive experiments on four challenging CDFSL benchmarks validate our state-of-the-art performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/shuaiyi308/ATHA.

In the context of resource-constrained environments such as embedded systems, adapting reduced-size foundation models to downstream tasks has become increasingly popular. This has recently motivated the emerging setting of task-specific distillation, where a larger and a smaller version of the same foundation model are both adapted to the same downstream task, with the goal of transferring knowledge from the former to the latter. Recent work has demonstrated the benefits of using a larger version of the same foundation model to assist the adaptation of a smaller one. Typically, the larger model (teacher) is first adapted via fine-tuning or linear probing before its knowledge is distilled into the smaller model (student). While fine-tuning the teacher often increases its performance, recent work showed that probing it leads to better knowledge distillation to the student. Our findings show that this is mainly due to a mis-alignment in feature representation between the teacher and the student which occurs during the teacher's fine-tuning. Inspired by existing efforts to preserve previously learned knowledge, we first propose leveraging low-rank adaptation, resulting in better feature alignment and therefore better knowledge transfer. Drawing from this insight, we further enhance the feature alignment through a parameter-sharing strategy of the adapters between the two encoders during joint training. Our proposed method, SLAD, shows better feature alignment between the teacher and student, which results in increased performance for not only the student but also the teacher model, while being 2x faster to train than fine-tuning. Through extensive experiments on multiple classification and segmentation datasets, we demonstrate the improved accuracy and transfer efficiency of our method, achieving state-of-the-art performance in the task-specific distillation framework.

AI coding agents increasingly act directly within software environments, yet existing analyses of their failures rely on benchmark trajectories that miss how developers actually experience misalignment. We present an observational study of 20,574 coding-agent sessions from 1,639 repositories across IDE and CLI workflows. We operationalize misalignment as a breakdown made visible through developer pushback, and annotate each episode along four axes: form, cause, cost, and resolution. We identify seven recurring forms, spanning how agents read projects, interpret developer intent, follow rules, bound their actions, implement and execute code, and report progress. 90.50% of episodes impose effort and trust costs rather than irreversible system damage, yet 91.49% of visible resolutions still require explicit user correction. Misalignment patterns also differ across IDE and CLI settings, persist across adjacent sessions, and shift over time: while overall rates decline, constraint violations and inaccurate self-reporting grow in share. Our findings inform the design of training, evaluation, and interfaces for keeping coding agents aligned with real developer workflows.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) is a core component of human--computer interaction and an increasingly important front-end for LLM-based assistants and agents. However, most current ASR systems still follow a single-pass paradigm, which is poorly aligned with human communication, where misunderstandings are resolved through iterative clarification and refinement. This mismatch makes it difficult to correct meaning-critical errors once they occur. Meanwhile, token-level metrics such as WER or CER cannot adequately reflect such a problem. To address these limitations, we formulate \emph{Interactive ASR} as a multi-turn refinement task and propose \textbf{Agentic ASR}, a closed-loop framework that combines a single-pass ASR front-end with semantic correction, intent routing, and reasoning-based editing. We further introduce the \textbf{Sentence-level Semantic Error Rate} ($S^2ER$), an LLM-based semantic evaluation metric, together with an \textbf{Interactive Simulation System} for scalable and reproducible benchmarking. Experiments on multilingual, named-entity-intensive, and code-switching benchmarks show that iterative interaction consistently reduces semantic errors, with much larger gains in $S^2ER$ than in conventional token-level metrics. Human--AI alignment and ablation studies further validate the reliability of the semantic judge and the robustness of the proposed framework. The code is available at: https://interactiveasr.github.io/ and the live demo is available at https://i-asr.sjtuxlance.com/

Safety alignment for large language models (LLMs) aims to reduce harmful or unsafe behavior while preserving general utility. However, recent findings reveal that alignment effects can be fragile: lightweight post-alignment manipulations, such as parameter noise, activation noise, or quantization, can easily weaken the intended safety behavior. Prior efforts to improve robustness have primarily focused on data curation, modified alignment objectives, and safety-critical parameter identification, leaving the role of the optimizer itself largely unexplored. In this paper, we are the first to study the robustness of safety alignment from the perspective of the base optimizer. This optimizer-centric view naturally points to zeroth-order optimization, which provides a robustness-oriented signal by evaluating safety alignment under perturbations. Based on this insight, we propose a hybrid framework that first performs standard first-order safety alignment and then applies zeroth-order refinement to improve robustness. Both theoretically and empirically, we show that only a few zeroth-order refinement steps can enhance robustness while preserving safety alignment. We further improve the efficiency of zeroth-order refinement by exploiting its inherent perturbation-based evaluations to estimate layer-wise robustness sensitivity, enabling the refinement process to concentrate updates on robustness-critical layers with modest training overhead.

Protein homology search underlies function annotation, structure prediction, and evolutionary analysis, but remains challenging in the "twilight zone," where global sequence similarity is weak and classical alignment methods lose sensitivity. Protein language models provide context-aware representations that could improve alignment sensitivity in this regime. However, prior protein embedding-based retrieval pipelines often pool these representations into a single vector, potentially obscuring local motifs, domains, or conserved residues that reveal remote homology. We introduce ProtoCol, a model which represents proteins as sets of residue embeddings and uses ColBERT-style late interaction to test whether residue-level comparison improves homolog retrieval. ProtoCol encodes proteins independently, keeps candidate representations pre-computable, and scores candidates with MaxSim over residue embeddings. On SCOPe superfamily and Pfam clan benchmarks, ProtoCol outperforms sequence-composition, alignment-based, pooled PLM, and trained single-vector baselines, supporting late interaction as an effective retrieval layer for remote homology search.

If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.

Representation intervention has emerged as a promising paradigm for aligning large language models toward desired behaviors without modifying model weights. Existing methods typically apply a fixed intervention uniformly across all inputs. However, we find that the appropriate intervention direction and strength vary substantially across samples, and such indiscriminate intervention leads to degradation of general capabilities on benign inputs. To address these challenges, we propose Multi-Adapter Representation Interventions via Energy Calibration (MARI). Specifically, we introduce a competitive multi-adapter mechanism in which specialized experts capture non-linear correction patterns and adaptively determine the appropriate intervention direction and strength for different samples. Furthermore, we design an energy-based gating module that leverages internal propagation dynamics to distinguish inputs that are applicable for intervention. Extensive experiments across diverse model families and parameter scales demonstrate that MARI achieves state-of-the-art alignment performance. Our method significantly improves performance on TruthfulQA, BBQ, and safety benchmarks, while maintaining and even improving general capabilities on tasks such as MMLU and ARC. Our code is available at https://github.com/V1centNevwake/MARI.

Backpropagation is the core learning mechanism underlying deep learning. However, whether and how this algorithm is implemented in the brain remains highly debated. In particular, while forward activations of pretrained models reliably map onto the cortical hierarchy of visual processing, it is unknown whether backpropagated gradients exhibit a similar correspondence. Here, we address this question using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and magnetoencephalography (MEG) recordings of human brain responses to natural images. For this, we extend standard encoding analyses of forward activations to map backpropagated gradients onto neural data. Focusing on a recent self-supervised vision model (DINOv3) and reproducing results on eight vision models, we find that backpropagated gradients can reliably predict both fMRI and MEG signals, specifically in higher-level visual cortex and for later latencies. However, the spatial and temporal organization of these backpropagated gradients in the brain diverges from the patterns expected under a biologically plausible backpropagation mechanism: specifically, both the order in which gradients are computed and their spatial organization diverge from the temporal and spatial hierarchies of the human brain. Together, these results suggest that, although deep networks and the brain may share similar representational content, they likely rely on fundamentally different mechanisms to learn those representations.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making settings such as legal reasoning, where consistency under factually equivalent inputs is critical. However, we find that fact-preserved but differently framed inputs can significantly destabilize LLM decisions. To systematically investigate this problem, we introduce Fragile, a large-scale benchmark that isolates fact-preserving semantic framing across three controlled dimensions: value-tinted narration, temporal slice, and narrative vividness. Our experiments reveal a high susceptibility of LLMs to framing, with an average decision flip rate of 28.6%. We find that simple prior prompt-level and activation-level interventions not only fail to suppress framing sensitivity but actively amplify it. We therefore propose Valign, a representation-level method that explicitly targets these framing dimensions by anchoring decisions to a stable value prior, steering hidden states toward the model's value-consistent direction, and projecting out temporal-vividness-sensitive directions from the model's hidden states. Valign consistently reduces framing-induced decision flips, demonstrating that robust mitigation requires directly targeting the internal pathways in which framing operates.

Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling. There the default validity test, correlating a metric to human judgment, has no stable anchor: inter-rater agreement is low, structured by annotator identity, barely reproducible, and length-biased. So we cannot answer the question that matters: does capability that scales on objective benchmarks transfer to subjective behavior, and would our instruments even tell us if it did not? We build an instrument for this regime and report what it reveals at the frontier. We contribute, first, a self-evolving instrument that selects and then authors its own behavioral dimensions under a multiplicative anti-gaming fitness, self-halting when it stops improving; second, a trust-by-construction paradigm that earns belief through three certificates established without a human gold standard, where human raters saturate (rho ~ 0.45); and third, the finding it makes visible -- capability transfer is dissociable. Across 49 models, 8 families, and 24 months, subjective behaviors are where objective-benchmark scaling fails to carry over: the sharpest case, advice-restraint (knowing when not to give advice), is the frontier's universal-lowest dimension, and at gpt-4.1->gpt-5 it ran backwards while the aggregate score hid it -- a regression one instruction recovers. Warm restraint is moved by model generation, not by raw scale, MoE width, inference budget, or reasoning mode; the open-weight Pareto frontier matches closed flagships at ~10-80x lower per-call cost; and four judge families replicate the rubric on held-out human ESConv conversations. Data, code, the locked rubric, and judge prompts will be released upon publication.

We introduce CAREF, a parameter-efficient fine-tuning framework that jointly optimizes predictive accuracy and explanation faithfulness via calibration-aware regularization. At its core, CAREF couples entropy-based calibration with token-level sparsity control through a single unified loss, the Calibration-Aware Regularization for Explanation Faithfulness (LSCED), without requiring rationale supervision. Evaluated on four NLE benchmarks (COS-E, ECQA, ComVE, e-SNLI) with Flan-T5, our lightweight CAREF-AQ variant attains the best average accuracy (89.04) and explanation alignment (81.00 nBERT) using only 6.43% of trainable parameters, outperforming LoRA and AdaLoRA. To our knowledge, CAREF is the first method to unify entropy and sparsity regularization in a single training objective for interpretable LLM fine-tuning.

Alignment faking (AF) refers to a model strategically complying with a training objective to avoid behavioural modification while preserving its deployment preferences. Understanding when and why AF arises matters as models grow better at distinguishing training from deployment. Prior work finds AF fragile, prompt-sensitive, and model-dependent, leaving its underlying drivers unclear. We study AF in a controlled, minimal setup that isolates its core components, and observe it across a wider range of models than previously reported, including small-scale models. We identify three separable drivers -- values, goal guarding, and sycophancy -- and show via targeted prompt ablations and activation steering that each independently modulates AF behaviour. Our results indicate AF is more widespread than previously reported and that its occurrence is predictable from situational cues and measurable model tendencies such as baseline sycophancy and stated values. The decomposition suggests concrete directions for detecting and mitigating AF in future models.

Fine-tuning a pretrained language model on a curated dataset can produce spurious correlations between the fine-tuning task and unintended latent factors -- such as misaligned personas or political slant -- that the curation procedure has entangled with the task. The model can latch onto these spurious correlations, leading to bias and reduced out-of-distribution generalisation. We prove that under reasonable assumptions on task complexity and the spurious correlation, such latent factors can be identified, without supervision, from the weights of a naive LoRA fine-tune. Existing approaches to removing bias, such as activation steering, remove identified factors from residual-stream activations, either at inference or during training. We argue, however, that the goal should be to remove the spurious correlation, not the latent factor itself, as the pretrained model may rely on it for genuine task signal. To enable this, we propose GRASP, GRadient projection of Associated Spurious Patterns, which prevents the model from acquiring new reliance on the identified latent factor while preserving any pretrained content along it. We validate on three fine-tuning tasks. The first two involve emergent misalignment, where fine-tuning on a narrow task -- in our case, writing insecure code and giving bad medical advice -- leads to misaligned responses on unrelated topics. Here our method completely removes misalignment in the insecure code case and reduces them by ~5x in the bad medical advice case, beating all baselines in the trade-off between misalignment-reduction and task-preservation. The last is a novel political-bias experiment, where fine-tuning on right-skewed Reddit financial-advice data causes political-lean drift on unrelated topics. Here our method reduces drift by more than half, while improving financial task performance, beating all baselines.

Probabilistic forecasting estimates the likelihood of uncertain future events. To improve LLM forecasting, existing methods typically learn from binary outcomes to output verbalized forecasts. However, while aggregated human forecasts contain rich information in both the crowd probability estimate and the degree of agreement among forecasters, how to utilize these signals remains underexplored. To address this, we propose the Beta-Bernoulli Calibrator (BBC), which converts an initial point estimate forecast from any model into a distribution over event likelihood, using supervision from both binary outcomes and human forecasts. BBC models event likelihood $p \sim \text{Beta}(α, β)$ and outcome $y \sim \text{Bernoulli}(p)$, with the mean as the calibrated point forecast and the variance as the epistemic uncertainty. Our results show that BBC generally provides better calibrated and more accurate forecasts than both traditional post-hoc calibration methods and models fine-tuned specifically for forecasting, while remaining lightweight and having good generalization. We also show that the epistemic uncertainty captured by BBC is a more reliable predictor of forecasting error than verbalized confidence.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard method to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences. In this work, we introduce alignment tampering, a potential vulnerability where the LLM undergoing alignment influences the preference dataset, causing RLHF to amplify undesired behaviors. This arises from core limitations of RLHF: (1) preference datasets are constructed from the LLM's own outputs, allowing it to influence them, and (2) pairwise comparisons only indicate which response is better, not why. These limitations can be exploited to cause alignment tampering. For example, if an LLM generates biased responses with higher quality, annotators will prefer them based on quality. However, preference labels do not distinguish quality from bias, and the reward model inherits this limitation. Optimizing such rewards through reinforcement learning or best-of-N sampling can amplify misaligned biases. Our experiments demonstrate amplification across diverse biases: from keyword bias to propaganda (e.g., sexism), brand promotion, and instrumental goal-seeking. Mitigation remains challenging, as existing techniques for robust RLHF fail to fully resolve alignment tampering without sacrificing response quality. These findings reveal structural vulnerabilities of current RLHF and emphasize the need to prevent this vulnerability. Project page: https://alignment-tampering.github.io/

Significant progress has been made in aligning LLMs with target value functions. We argue that, even when an LLM has been well aligned in (post-)training, it may still fail to maximise the aligned value in reasoning. We mathematically formalise this gap as rational value risk: the utility discrepancy between a model's deployed reasoning strategy and its rational counterpart whose responses maximise utility in the steepest direction. The estimation error of rational value risk is further decomposed into three components from bounded prompts, bounded responses, and imperfect verifiers. Extensive experiments are conducted, covering models Llama-3.1, Qwen-2.5, Tülu-3 families (7B-72B), GPT-5.2, GPT-5.5, and DeepSeek-V4, and benchmarks UltraFeedback, AlpacaEval, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval, and MathArena. The results validate that (1) rational value risk is widespread; (2) value alignment can reduce, but cannot avoid, it; (3) self-consistency can improve rationality; and (4) a longer chain of thought improves rationality but with diminishing returns. The code is at https://github.com/EVIEHub/LLM-Rationality

Hate speech annotation is costly, subjective, and prone to annotator disagreement, making large-scale dataset construction challenging. We systematically analyze how well large language models (LLMs) align with human judgments across ten theoretically grounded subjective attributes, such as dehumanization, violence, and sentiment, evaluating both small and large variants of Llama 3.1 and Qwen 2.5. Our analysis reveals a consistent split across all models: behaviorally explicit dimensions (insult, humiliate, attack-defend) correlate strongly with human annotations, while evaluative dimensions (respect, sentiment, hate speech) are systematically inverted. Demographic persona conditioning reduces model confidence without improving alignment. Building on these insights, we propose combining attribute-level LLM predictions via a confidence-weighted Ridge regression to reconstruct continuous hate speech scores from the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, achieving $R^2$ of up to 0.71 and outperforming direct prompting baselines, demonstrating that structured attribute decomposition recovers a richer and more human-aligned signal than end-to-end label prediction alone.

Multi-stakeholder tasks require one output to satisfy users with conflicting preferences. Holistic LLM judges conflate utility estimation and utility aggregation, yielding unstable implicit weights. We show empirically and theoretically that this aggregation-specific \emph{weighting noise} can create large score shifts when stakeholder satisfaction is dispersed; in our experiments, these weight-induced shifts also increase with stakeholder count. We propose \textsc{DecompR}: counterfactual-calibrated weights are fixed from query structure before candidate scoring, while per-role utilities are estimated independently, removing candidate-dependent weight drift and reducing estimation noise.

With the rapid evolution of internet services, recommendation systems have become indispensable. In particular, the blending (re-ranking) stage plays a pivotal role in allocating traffic across diverse business objectives. However, existing approaches often suffer from coupled allocation plans, score inflation, and a lack of interpretability. To address these challenges, we propose Uniboost, a unified traffic allocation framework. Uniboost introduces a posterior value alignment mechanism that calibrates abstract model scores to anchor metrics with explicit business semantics, significantly enhancing interpretability. Furthermore, it employs an independent linear boosting paradigm to decouple complex weighting schemes, enabling precise attribution of each plan's contribution. We validate the effectiveness of Uniboost through online A/B tests and in-depth data analysis, demonstrating three key findings: 1) Reducing the overall weight of weighted scores effectively mitigates unintended business interference, yielding a more efficient micro-level traffic allocation strategy; 2) Post-hoc analyses and aggregated dashboards provide intuitive, macro-level insights that guide the design of the overall traffic allocation mechanism; 3) The proposed "Effective Completion Score" serves as an easily obtainable post-metric that offers a reliable anchor for content recommendation pipelines. Collectively, our experiments show that Uniboost not only improves traffic allocation efficiency and recommendation performance at the micro level but also provides macro-level guidance for system iteration. Thus, this work provides an efficient and controllable traffic regulation solution for large-scale industrial recommendation systems.