Value

Large language models increasingly support decisions where values are in tension, yet little is known about whether interacting with them changes which values users prioritize. In a preregistered study, 200 U.S. adults interacted with ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini as a thinking partner or read fixed AI-generated considerations. The prompt asked LLMs to support reasoning without recommending a decision and named no values. Participants advised people facing real dilemmas and completed parallel PVQ-RR forms before, immediately after, and one task later. Each LLM condition temporarily shifted value priorities toward personal focus relative to the control (d=0.37-0.51), primarily through increased Self-Enhancement. Participants' advice retained words and meaning from their exchanges. Thus, a brief LLM interaction that neither targets values nor seeks to persuade can reorient values active during judgment without detectable convergence in value directions or advice.

Agent harnesses supply planning guidance, organize execution, and check completion. We study how these components affect success, erroneous acceptance, and cost in two Retail experiments and an Airline pilot in $τ^2$-bench. The primary comparison pairs prewritten task-specific plans (Fixed) with shuffled policy text matched in word count (Sham), isolating the contribution of guidance content. Across 265 matched cells, Fixed improves oracle-verified success by 7.17 percentage points (90% task-clustered bootstrap interval, 1.15--13.36 points), with gains concentrated in higher-complexity tasks. A read-only terminal verifier rejects 61% of Retail oracle-invalid episodes while withholding 17% of correct ones, at less than one cent of additional cost per episode. Which component matters more depends on the loss assigned to erroneous acceptance: at low liability the planning gain dominates; at high liability the verifier's avoided false passes dominate---and a standalone verifier captures nearly all the false-pass benefit of the full planning-plus-verification stack at a fraction of its cost.

The economic value of inference depends on how capacity and task information are distributed across stages of AI production. We study these organizational margins using controlled workflow experiments on externally verified software-engineering tasks. In two matched resource panels, direct execution records the same success rate of 59.6 percent at logical-token ceilings of 12,000 and 24,000, while success under information-constrained planning rises from 36.2 to 51.2 percent. The planning disadvantage narrows by 15.0 percentage points (95 percent task-cluster bootstrap interval: 4.2 to 25.8). A strict read-only planning campaign varies whether the planner sees the task issue. At 12,000 tokens, issue access raises success by about 16 percentage points over issue-hidden planning. Compared with direct execution, task-informed planning is about 10 points lower at 12,000 tokens; at 24,000 tokens, it shows a 29.6-point advantage. In the resource panels, direct execution uses substantially less than either ceiling, while the planning workflow's binding rate falls from 46.2 to 0.8 percent and downstream execution accounts for 89.9 percent of the increase in total use. Scale determines the capacity available to a system; workflow and information structure shape the productive value

Existing legal benchmarks cover diverse tasks, while continuous monetary remedies remain comparatively underexplored. We introduce ECtHR-NPD, to the best of our knowledge, the first benchmark for predicting non-pecuniary damage (NPD) awards at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) from case information when no statutory formula or explicit calculation rule determines the amount. ECtHR-NPD contains 14,575 cases with case-level awards in nominal euros, chronological splits, and a protocol separating target construction from model input. We evaluate a battery of methods, including constant predictors, gradient-boosted trees, retrieval methods, fine-tuned encoder language models (LMs), prompted decoder LMs, and knowledge-augmented agents. Our results show that more sophisticated LM and agentic approaches do not consistently outperform the strongest feature-based baseline. All model families struggle to identify zero awards and to calibrate high-award predictions, with further degradation on the Challenging test view, making ECtHR-NPD a challenging testbed for current state-of-the-art open-weight and proprietary LMs.

In reinforcement learning for large language models, Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) commonly uses a critic to estimate state values and reduce the variance of policy updates. However, we uncover a systematic failure mode in PPO critics, which we call Value Flattening: state values, estimated from multiple Monte Carlo continuations, change sharply across intermediate states while critic predictions remain comparatively flat. We further observe this phenomenon in a controlled FrozenLake environment and find that it becomes more pronounced as the state space grows. Our theoretical and empirical analyses relate Value Flattening to an implicit variance penalty in the critic loss and redundant updates from temporally correlated states with similar gradients. Motivated by these findings, we introduce SParse Proximal Policy Optimization (SP$^3$O), which applies the value loss to only a few well-separated states in each response to mitigate both effects. Experiments on Qwen3-Base show that SP$^3$O with only three states supervised per response can mitigate Value Flattening and consistently improve the learned policy across model sizes and evaluation suites. Together, our results identify Value Flattening as an important yet overlooked failure mode of critic learning in standard PPO and show that a simple sparse supervision strategy can mitigate it.

Human values are deep motivational orientations that shape human behaviors. In e-commerce, they reveal the stable drivers behind users' purchase decisions. Compared with short-term interests, consumer values better explain how users evaluate products before purchase. However, consumer values are often implicit in complex and fragmented behavioral trajectories, leaving value measurement from e-commerce behaviors largely underexplored. To this end, we propose the Behavior-to-Value (B2V) task, which aims to identify consumer values from e-commerce behavioral trajectories. Centered on this task, we first construct the E-commerce Consumption Value Taxonomy (ECVT) and introduce B2V-Bench, the first B2V dataset and benchmark, based on anonymized Taobao behavioral logs. B2V-Bench consists of real-world purchase decision episodes, covering 25 types of purchase behaviors, along with corresponding consumer value orientations manifested in each episode. To improve consumer value measurement accuracy, we further present B2V-Verifier, a behavior-to-value measurement model based on Value Verification Tuning, which learns to assess whether behaviors provide sufficient evidence for each value inference. Experiments show that B2V-Verifier outperforms strong LLM baselines, improving multi-label classification by 34%. The dataset and code will be publicly released upon acceptance.

In practice, various learning scenarios provide access to auxiliary features exclusively during training. Incorporating such data to enhance model performance gave rise to a paradigm known as Learning Using Privileged Information (LUPI). While this extra information is intended to improve the resulting model, establishing a generalized, cohesive understanding of how privileged information (PI) transfers useful knowledge remains a challenge. Vapnik's original theory and subsequent works offer performance guarantees in certain cases, but these results are inherently per-algorithm and rely on setting-specific proof approaches. Consequently, a more general framework explaining how and when PI transfers useful knowledge is still missing. To bridge this gap, we introduce an algorithm-agnostic, information-theoretic approach based on the PAC-Bayes framework. Rather than asking whether a particular algorithm exploits PI, we ask how much value it could offer: comparing the tightest achievable risk bound with and without PI yields its potential - an upper limit on the extractable gain. We introduce a metric that quantifies this potential directly from empirical training risk, bypassing the need for test-time data access, and validate our findings in both supervised and unsupervised settings. The results demonstrate a robust correspondence between our training-time metric and true test-time performance gains. Ultimately, this work takes a necessary step toward an information-theoretic understanding of LUPI, and quantifying the potential of privileged features before committing to a model.

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

Hazardous robotic exploration requires robots to map spatial risks, such as unsafe terrain, radiation, fire, mines, or structural damage, while operating where collecting information can itself cause failure. A highly informative path may expose the robot to hazards, terminate execution, and prevent future observations. Hazardous exploration therefore requires deciding not only where uncertainty is largest, but when reducing it is worth the risk. This paper introduces a valuation-layer view of this problem. We keep the belief update, sensor model, physical risk model, and finite-horizon informative planner fixed, and change only the scalar objective used to rank feasible paths. Within this framework, we introduce a risk-augmented Behavioral Information objective based on Prelec probability weighting, yielding an interpretable family of conservative-to-aggressive information-risk valuations. Theoretically, we show that valuation parameters create switching boundaries between high-information/high-risk and lower-information/lower-risk paths, and induce a transformed Pareto-frontier structure over feasible exploration policies. Large-scale failure-truncated grid-world experiments show that valuation alone reshapes the information-risk frontier. Shannon information planning remains a strong raw-information baseline, while risk-aware objectives can reduce hazard exposure and robot losses by avoiding failures that truncate future sensing. Risk-augmented Behavioral valuation is Pareto-competitive with standard risk-aware baselines and provides interpretable conservative and intermediate regimes. These results support a framework in which robots reason not only about how much uncertainty an action reduces, but whether that reduction is worth the risk required to obtain it.

The KV cache is a primary bottleneck for Transformer decoding: its memory footprint and cache-read traffic grow with sequence length. Grouped-query attention (GQA) reduces this cost by sharing key-value heads, but still stores both a key and a value at every step. We introduce Grouped Value Attention (GVA), which stores grouped values and reconstructs content keys with a learned linear map. At inference, the map can be absorbed into the query, eliminating the need to materialize content keys in the intended decode path. A small shared decoupled RoPE channel retains positional information through a separately cached positional key. For the configurations studied, this representation reduces persistent cache scalars by approximately 45-47% relative to matched GQA. At the 350M-parameter scale with 30B FineWeb-Edu tokens, the 16-dimensional positional variant reaches 44.18 average accuracy across five tasks, compared with 44.36 for GQA and 43.88 for MLA. These results demonstrate near-GQA benchmark accuracy with a more compact cache representation. To translate this compact representation into faster autoregressive inference, we have developed custom decoding kernels and are currently evaluating their end-to-end inference performance with an open-source release planned soon.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into human society, aligning them with pluralistic social values has become a critical priority. However, whether LLMs exhibit consistent value preferences across languages remains underexplored, particularly for culturally grounded values, which are more abstract and difficult to evaluate and align than safety-centric principles. We investigate this issue through Chinese Social Values (CSV), a value system rooted in Chinese culture and comprising $12$ dimensions across national, societal, and personal levels. We construct C-Voices, the first comprehensive multilingual contrastive probe dataset for CSV, with 86,400 dilemma-based instances in six languages, each pairing a CSV-aligned action with a value-conflicting alternative. Building on the contrastive probes of C-Voices, we then propose a fine-tuning-free value vector steering method that derives value directions from hidden-state discrepancies and selectively intervenes on value-sensitive layers during inference. Experiments on six languages show that CSV-oriented preferences are model-dependent and language-sensitive, with the same dilemma eliciting divergent responses across languages. Our method achieves effective CSV steering, supports cross-lingual transfer of value vectors, and generalizes to existing FLAMES and ValuePrism.

The emergence of agentic AI and LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) presents unprecedented opportunities for automating complex tasks, while simultaneously raising critical concerns about the preservation of fundamental human-centered values, such as privacy, fairness, and safety. Although software engineering has traditionally focused on functional correctness, the adoption of LLMs and AI agents into complex socio-technical systems has intensified the need for responsible software engineering and robust value alignment. In MAS, architectural design decisions, such as coordination mechanisms, communication protocols, and system topologies, play a central role in shaping system behavior and the outcomes they produce. This paper argues that architectural choices influence not only the functionality and performance of MAS but can also promote value-oriented system behavior. Therefore, we investigate how different architectural designs support different human-centered values, discussing the following value-preserving architectural patterns: (i) a privacy-aware architecture with a federated topology, (ii) a distributed architecture to promote pluralism and diversity, and (iii) a guard-agent architecture to detect and mitigate unfairness. Finally, we introduce representative use cases to illustrate the proposed architectures in real-world scenarios. By linking architectural design with human-centered values, this work lays the foundation for a unified set of architectural patterns and guidelines towards the design of trustworthy MAS.

Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding enables high-quality text generation by selecting the hypothesis that maximizes a utility metric over sampled pseudo-references. However, it is highly susceptible to metric overfitting: it can irregularly inflate the chosen utility metric at the direct expense of other unoptimized evaluation metrics. To mitigate this, we introduce SVD-MBR, which frames the pairwise utility matrix as a noisy information signal. By computing a low-rank approximation via Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) and retaining only the top-$k$ components, we effectively decouple true consensus from metric noise. Experiments demonstrate that SVD-MBR successfully regularizes decoding, yielding substantial gains across a range of generalized metrics. Furthermore, we reveal that this denoising is metric-dependent: neural metrics encode a robust low-rank consensus ideal for SVD, whereas surface-level metrics struggle to separate signal from metric noise.

As agentic systems become compound systems, increasingly important decisions move above task execution itself: when should a higher-level controller preserve the strategy guiding another process, and when should it revise it? We study this meta-level control problem in a hierarchical latent reasoner whose manager can retain or replace a commitment governing lower-level computation. Across three precommitted training seeds, learned revision timing produces qualitatively different policies, ranging from an almost deterministic early clock to substantially more state conditioned schedule distributions, yet none outperforms the best forced timing policy evaluated on the same frozen checkpoint. This separates state dependence from decision value: a controller can vary its actions with internal state without turning that variation into a reproducible task-performance benefit. A deeper intervention study on the original checkpoint shows that timing itself is consequential and order-sensitive, while exhaustive enumeration reveals that a strong fixed schedule captures most of the measurable value available from timing at this decision budget. Counterfactual PERSIST/REPLAN diagnostics further show why score-level evidence can be misleading when predictability is dominated by decision position rather than within-position discrimination. Together, these results argue that learned meta-level control should be evaluated along three separate axes: whether its score depends on state, whether that dependence changes realized behavior, and whether those changes capture outcome value beyond a strong non-adaptive policy.

LLMs have been rapidly adopted across writing tasks, prompting the development of tools for detecting LLM-generated text. Yet, these tools largely measure how much of a document's surface text was written by an LLM and aren't fundamentally designed to measure how much of the information content or ideas originated from the LLM itself rather than being supplied by the user in the prompt. In this work, we design a framework that measures how much value a person adds on top of what a language model could have easily produced by itself. The method requires no training or labeled data and never scores the document's surface text, insulating it from stylistic confounders. Instead, it extracts the document's content at increasing levels of granularity, uses an LLM to reconstruct the document from each partial representation, and compares these reconstructions with those produced from the task description alone. We call this framework Value Over Language Model (VOLM), which measures a document's contribution relative to a replacement-level document that an LLM could produce from the task description alone. We evaluate VOLM with a specific instantiation of this framework across three domains: news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays. VOLM separates human-authored documents from matched LLM-generated documents produced from generic task descriptions, while remaining substantially invariant to content-preserving transformations, including LLM-based reconstruction and round-trip translation. We further find that increasingly constrained content extractors reduce residual differences between LLM-generated and humanized text, demonstrating the importance of disentangling informational content from stylistic variation. We hope these results encourage further work on specialized instantiations of the framework and on assessing human contributions in LLM-assisted writing more generally.

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.

JSON Bag-of-Tokens (JSON-Bag) is a recently proposed method to generically represent game trajectories by tokenizing their JSON descriptions. We introduce JSON-Bag VF, a game-agnostic approach to training value functions for game-playing agents using JSON-Bag prototypes. We show that this approach can be enhanced with Random Forest-based feature selection and a method to select game-stage-specific features. We evaluate JSON-Bag VF with One-step-look-ahead (JSON-Bag OSLA) on six tabletop games over different combinations of prototype-tokenization and feature selections. JSON-Bag OSLA outperforms baseline OSLA agents in most games. Our analysis also shows that feature selection significantly improves JSON-Bag VF and that feature selection is the most important factor in JSON-Bag VF performance, over prototype-tokenization.

In evolutionary search, a weak child can be a valuable ancestor that makes high-fitness regions reachable. Immediate-return control is blind to this delayed utility, penalizing mutations through their immediate offspring even when they open productive future lineages. We formalize this hidden dynamic as the time value of evolution within a finite-horizon Markov decision process. To exploit it, we introduce Lineage-Value Policy Gradients (LVPG), a long-horizon actor-critic framework for automated trading policy discovery. Our architecture decouples search control into specialized policy heads over a shared generative backbone: a bootstrapped critic head estimates the value of finite-horizon lineage potential from multi-step mutation trees, while an actor head dynamically modulates mutation intensity over the remaining search budget. We isolate the impact of long-horizon credit assignment against immediate-return optimization across 90 paired runs under matched operators, lineage supervision, folds, seeds, and budgets. Path-based credit assignment substantially accelerates finite-budget search, increasing validation best-so-far AUC by 0.394 Sharpe units. LVPG also produces fewer temporary regressions than immediate-return optimization and recovers from them more often. Finite-horizon lineage value yields more selective non-monotonic search and stronger policies within identical resource constraints.

Traditional player evaluation in professional handball relies on basic box-score metrics or heuristic indices, which fail to credit the multi-player build-up chain. While football (soccer) analytics has adopted Expected Threat (xT) and Valuing Actions by Estimating Probabilities (VAEP), these event-based action valuation frameworks have not yet been adapted to handball. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive adaptation and evaluation of xT and VAEP for handball, utilizing five seasons of tracking-derived event data from the Handball Bundesliga. We develop Handball-xT (H-xT) using a handball-native court zoning layout, demonstrating via simulations that it is systematically more robust than standard rectangular grids. We optimize Handball-VAEP (H-VAEP) by tailoring its feature space and selecting the context length to limit team-identity leakage. Our evaluation shows that H-VAEP yields exceptionally stable, discriminative, and intuitive player ratings that highlight build-up play. Finally, we release our complete code repository to help professional clubs deploy these models.

What a finite learning device has recorded and what will hold value for it on future tasks are not the same quantity. We develop a typed accounting for finite-state learning devices that separates four components: a training-side fit functional $Φ_{\mathrm{fit}}$, the record-correlation stock $J_{D}=I(M;D)$, an update-side search ledger $σ_{M}$, and an operational capital value $V(M;T,b)$. This value is the work gap between an informed protocol class and a blind class obtained by deleting the memory-read port and re-optimizing from scratch. (I) Separation: for every $n$, there is a device family on which record correlation and world correlation grow by $n\ln 2$ while the capital gain is exactly zero. In the $\mathrm{flat}^{*}$ regime, data-free updates never increase $V$. (II) Capitalization ledger: an exact $\mathrm{flat}^{*}$ extraction identity and a universal ledger identity give, for (F5$'$)-stable $M$-local updates under a no-discarded-record-correlation condition (f), the bound $η_{\mathrm{cap}}\le 1$ for the capitalization efficiency $η_{\mathrm{cap}}=ΔV/(k T\,σ_{M})$, together with necessary and sufficient conditions for equality. (III) Value retention: for the retention gap $L_{\mathrm{gen}}$ and retention ratio $ρ_{\mathrm{gen}}$ (the former carries no sign constraint; the latter is defined for positive training-side value and is not confined to $[0,1]$) we give a two-layer alignment domain: an exact exchange rate between value and the side-information-adjusted record fit $I(M';D\mid Y)$ without any record-side-information independence assumption, and a raw record-stock exchange rate under a joint side-information neutrality condition $(M,D)\perp Y$, whose boundary is marked by an explicit one-time-pad witness. These are statements about finite-device value retention under task-distribution shift, not a theory of statistical generalization.

Coupon campaigns seek to lift both conversion and revenue, but gross merchandise value (GMV) follows a deterministic funnel from conversion to conditional order value and is zero-inflated and heavy-tailed. We propose FunnelCausalNet, an uplift estimator coupling a binary conversion head with a nonnegative conditional-value head through $μ_{\mathrm{gmv}}=μ_{\mathrm{conv}}μ_{\mathrm{val}}$. Under explicit RCT, support, rate-gap, and cross-head covariance-control assumptions, an idealized leading-order MSE comparison identifies a regime in which funnel composition can reduce pointwise variance; this is a heuristic, not a guarantee for the shared-representation neural model. The estimator is paired with marginal split-conformal CATE summaries, combined through a Bonferroni union as audit bands, and a Lagrangian budgeted allocator using RCT-anchored estimates for subsidy-aware ROI accounting. On semi-synthetic multi-tier Criteo-MT7, FunnelCausalNet's mean AUUC_GMV is within one seed standard deviation of the leading feature-interaction baseline among eleven baselines, while a controlled ablation reduces GMV effect error versus direct GMV regression by 18--48% across tested zero-inflation regimes. On de-identified industrial Hotel-Coupon RCT logs with about 4.9 million hold-out exposure records per seed, expected-outcome evaluation sweeps full LP frontiers; FunnelCausalNet has the best seed-averaged mean DeltaROI at all seven correlated anchors from 10% to 60%, which we treat as descriptive frontier consistency rather than independent significance. On sparse binary-spend public benchmarks, revenue-focused rankers can dominate uplift-curve proxies, defining an explicit regime boundary.

Specialist training beats generalist scale when forecasting financial statements. To our knowledge, no prior work jointly forecasts complete financial statements beyond one year, yet in a discounted-cash-flow valuation most firm value sits past that window. We release ProForma-20Q, a reproducible benchmark for forecasting 78 statement line items 1-20 quarters ahead, for anonymized firms, from past statements and an industry code, scored by change-space $R^2$. On it, Forma, a transformer that reads statements as sets of (account, quarter, value) tuples and maximizes a masked-tuple Gaussian likelihood, beats every competitor we field: classical machine learning, chained gradient boosting, a zero-shot time-series foundation model, and frontier large language models. Its lead widens with horizon, where valuation needs accuracy most, and its Gaussian predictive intervals never under-cover. Forma's forecasts nearly satisfy accounting identities; exact coherence is recoverable at no statistically significant accuracy cost. Its tuple interface supports scenario analysis without retraining, and we show that pinning future revenue paths sharpens the rest of the statement.

Linear Quadratic Stochastic Optimal Control (LQ-SOC) establishes a fundamental framework for steering noisy dynamical systems and has recently gained renewed interest in the machine learning community. However, current state-of-the-art policy-based methods suffer from prohibitive computational costs and instability due to their heavy reliance on full-trajectory simulation. To overcome these limitations, we propose a paradigm shift toward a value-based approach by revisiting Path Integral Control (PIC). Although standard PIC suffers from the same high-variance bottleneck as policy-based methods, we discover that by truncating and marginalizing the original path integral formulation, we can derive a temporal recursive form of the value function. Building upon this theoretical foundation, we propose the Path Integral Value Matching (PI-VM) algorithm. Specifically, we employ temporal-difference learning to approximate the recursive value dynamics, and further integrate the Girsanov theorem with experience replay to enable off-policy training. We benchmark PI-VM against SOTA policy-based methods across various SOC benchmarks and sampling tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that PI-VM matches SOTA precision with an order-of-magnitude efficiency gain in low-dimensional settings, while effectively mitigating mode collapse in high-dimensional scenarios. Consequently, PI-VM offers a scalable solution for solving complex SOC problems.

Can AI systems be aligned to human values? The popularization of large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal foundation models has seen a rise in harms spanning from toxic speech and hallucinations to AI agents executing unauthorized actions. Within the field of AI safety, these harmful instances are often framed as the alignment problem, or of models being misaligned with human values. Researchers have responded by pursuing applied and theoretical AI value alignment efforts, often without specifying what they mean by human values. How does the field of AI value alignment conceive of human values? How are these conceptions of values technically operationalized and evaluated? What does the emergent theory of value from this field signify for the future of AI? We annotated 94 value alignment research papers to discern their implicit theory of values in AI. The majority do not define values, relying heavily on preferences as a stand in that runs the risk of reducing complex culturally situated concepts down to binary choices. As researchers dispense with using human annotators for model training and evaluation, turning instead to synthetic data and autorater approaches to aligning and evaluating models, we identify the potential to close off alternative methods for contesting and enacting values in foundation models. In making AI value alignments philosophical commitments explicit, we seek to bring great specificity and under explored perspectives in the debate on whether and how AI can address human values.

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.

Large language models are increasingly being deployed in governmental settings, yet few existing evaluation frameworks jointly reflect the values of public administration and the linguistic requirements of non-English contexts. We present the "Grip on LLMs" framework, a systematic evaluation suite for Dutch governmental use developed in collaboration with domain experts from a major Dutch municipal organisation. Through an advisory board process, user research, and a survey of the users of a civil-servant chatbot, we identify six evaluation dimensions (factuality, honesty, social bias, energy consumption, cost, and training data transparency) and operationalise them into a benchmark suite covering more than 30 multilingual and Dutch-specific models. Our results reveal that no single model excels across all dimensions, and that trade-offs are unavoidable: higher quality consistently comes at greater environmental impact and financial cost, while bias remains largely independent of both. We further find that factuality (whether a model answers correctly) and honesty (whether a model acknowledges what it does not know) are governed by distinct properties, with high factuality not implying high honesty. To make these findings actionable for non-technical audiences, we release a publicly accessible, user-friendly model overview designed for the full range of stakeholders involved in governmental LLM selection, from engineers to policymakers.

Outcome verifiers score completed reasoning traces but do not assign credit to intermediate tokens. Privileged self-distillation attempts to fill this gap by rescoring a model's own rollout with training-only information. A token likelihood change, however, is not automatically outcome credit. We separate three questions: whether the score tracks better actions, whether feedback construction changes what is compared, and what behavior the training loss reinforces. We establish these distinctions formally. When a rollout is scored using hindsight feedback written about that same rollout, its content determines both the tokens and the scoring context, creating direct self-dependence. Using feedback from another rollout of the same problem removes this dependence but does not guarantee a useful score. In matched experiments with a 20B model on AIME 2025, the implemented additive score is near chance (AUC=0.505) and slightly favors incorrect traces after length adjustment. In the paired comparison, the outcome-only control records 64.2%, versus 24.2%--33.9% for five token-score variants. The results motivate validating score meaning, feedback construction, and training behavior separately before calling a likelihood signal credit.

Long-horizon research agents solve open-ended tasks through iterative retrieval, aggregation, and synthesis, but context grows rapidly while the marginal value of additional evidence often declines. This leads to unnecessary token cost, higher latency, and noisier inputs for final report generation. We study marginal value estimation for context management in deep research agents and present the first systematic stage-aware comparison of pruning strategies across the pipeline. We evaluate lightweight heuristic criteria and a learned value model at pre-retrieval, post-retrieval, and pre-synthesis stages. Our results show that pruning effectiveness depends more on where pruning is applied than on the specific scoring rule: early pruning yields the largest end-to-end savings, while later pruning mainly refines the final synthesis context. Lightweight heuristics reduce token usage by up to 73% with little quality degradation, learned pruning remains competitive on selected trade-offs, and no single method dominates across quality, efficiency, and faithfulness. These findings provide practical guidance for designing efficient long-horizon agentic systems.

Text-to-SQL benchmarks ship schemas whose column names already say what the columns mean. Production warehouses are the inverse: cryptic identifiers, partial or absent documentation. We address the problem they pose first: recovering what columns and values mean from the data itself. Rosetta places a language model inside a verification harness: a deterministic profiler extracts structural evidence (value fingerprints, a 26-pattern library, checksum verdicts), the model proposes semantics conditioned on that evidence, and every fact carries provenance and a confidence bounded by its evidence class. Against human documentation on 680 paired columns across eleven BIRD databases, identifiers destroyed, the harness delivers metadata that is 0.475 accurate on the 42% of columns it commits to, against 0.223 on 94% for the same model used directly. Restricted to the 283 columns where both arms speak, the harness writes no better prose than the model alone; the gain is selection: deterministic evidence governs whether the system speaks (coverage +0.257 [0.128, 0.378]), not how well. The deterministic layer is a competence detector, not a competence amplifier. A backbone swap bounds the claim: the prose finding reproduces, but prompt-requested abstention does not transfer; a code-enforced commit gate (predictions registered first; measured on a third backbone and held-out databases) makes no-evidence coverage 0.000 on every backbone. On a blind i2b2 clinical warehouse Rosetta decodes 95.5% of 134 real ICD-9 codes from values alone and abstains on all 44 NDC drug codes. The catalog supports calibrated abstention at query time: under full schema opacity a naive translator falls from 0.92 to 0.42 execution accuracy while our gate answers at 86% accuracy over 59% coverage. Negative results are reported plainly, including that our own authority ladder is not the mechanism behind the headline.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values remains a major challenge, especially for trustworthy AI. While existing approaches such as RLHF, CAI, and their variants have achieved promising results, they often rely on a single-agent framework and a unified reward system. This limits their ability to capture ethical pluralism, adapt to diverse moral contexts, and reflect the dynamics of multi-agent moral reasoning. In this work, we propose a framework that utilizes multilayer combinatorial fusion for contextual value alignment (MCF-CVA). At the first layer of the framework, it instantiates multiple moral agents, each fine-tuned to represent a distinctive value. Their outputs are then expanded combinatorially using both score- and rank-combinations as well as average and weighted aggregations. These combined models are then reduced to the same number of initial moral agents. This expansion and reduction (EAR) process continues for multi-layers until a stopping criterion is reached. The MCF-CVA framework leverages cognitive diversity between agents to mitigate conflicts and redundancies across multiple agents, producing responses that better reflect contextual human values. The framework using the EAR algorithm is performed on the dual architecture of Euclidean score space and Kemeny rank space. Empirical evaluations demonstrated that the proposed framework outperforms single-agent baselines, multi-agent single-layer results, and previous aggregation approaches on standard metrics, showing that the MCF-CVA framework provides a robust and effective mechanism for advancing contextual value alignment in LLMs.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as a primary source of information and advice, understanding their alignment to humans in terms of values becomes a pressing concern. A growing literature has leveraged large scale surveys to investigate to what extent LLMs' and humans' stated values and opinions align. With limited exceptions, studied populations have been defined country borders or cultural bounds. Yet, this focus neglects the role that socio-demographic divides may play for value alignment disparities. Relying on the European Social Survey, we address this knowledge gap by considering value alignment displayed with respect to 10 prominent commercial LLMs in terms of 15 socio-demographic variables as well as country of residence. Our analyses reveal that LLMs are indeed unequally aligned to the values of different socio-demographic groups, notably those defined by education, income, occupation and religion. When examining alignment at the individual level, a respondent's country, taken as a stand-alone variable, explains a substantial amount of variation that is on par with the full set of considered socio-demographics. Further disentangling the respective role of country-level and socio-demographic factors, we find they are complementary in explaining value alignment patterns, with their relative weights varying across the subset of questions considered.

Model evaluations may fix all tests before observing any responses or select later tests using earlier responses. We study this choice in a conditional-query model on a finite outcome space $\mathcal{X}$ with $|\mathcal{X}|=N$. We first ask which pairs of distribution classes can be reliably distinguished. We then ask how many additional queries are required to match an adaptive tester when all queried events must be fixed in advance. We show that learnability holds if and only if the two classes have positive separation in their pairwise conditional probabilities. When this separation is zero, the optimal worst-case error is exactly $1/2$ at every finite query budget. For any $T$-query adaptive policy and any $ρ\in (0,1)$, we construct a randomized non-adaptive procedure using $O(N^2(T + \log(1/ρ)))$ pair queries chosen before any response is observed. Its simulated transcript is within $ρ$ in total variation of the adaptive transcript, uniformly over all distributions in the model. We also construct a matching family with constant adaptive query complexity and $Ω_\varepsilon(N^2)$ non-adaptive query complexity. Consequently, the worst-case fixed-error adaptivity gap is $Θ_\varepsilon(N^2)$. Thus interaction can reduce the required number of tests by a quadratic factor, but the apparent exponential branching of an interactive evaluation does not yield an exponential query advantage.

Bar charts are commonly used in data visualization, and while they are easily understood by humans, it is non-trivial to extract the underlying data computationally. For a machine-learning-based approach, training chart de-rendering models usually requires labeled, real-world data. Labeling data is a time consuming task, which is why annotated data is scarce. Models can learn more efficiently when provided with features of high semantic quality, which a joint-embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) is designed to learn in a self-supervised manner. We present a per-bar, numerical value recovery pipeline for bar charts, where a JEPA encoder is used to produce semantically rich latent features. The decoder model consuming these features is simple and quick to train and outputs the coordinates of ticks and bars, which can be used to recover bar values. The effectiveness of self-supervised finetuning and quality of the extracted features is evident when comparing our model to end-to-end supervised baselines. Code, datasets and checkpoints are available on \href{https://github.com/dralois/Bar-JEPA}{GitHub}.

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".

Agent skills are increasingly optimized by automated feedback loops, producing long structured artifacts whose internal value remains unclear. We study skill valuation: assigning credit to the internal units of a fixed skill, such as rules, examples, scripts, and heuristics, under a fixed agent and held-out task distribution. Skill valuation differs from data or prompt-span valuation because skill units are structured: they may depend on other units, belong to a document hierarchy, trigger agent behavior, and consume limited prompt context. We introduce SkillSV, a structure-aware Shapley-style framework for skill valuation. SkillSV compiles a skill into units, dependencies, and hierarchy, so that only valid counterfactual skills are evaluated. It uses paired deletion and length-neutral padding to separate content value from context cost, and estimates the resulting values with a rollout-budgeted estimator for noisy agent evaluations. On four agentic benchmarks, we assess the faithfulness, actionability, and explanation of SkillSV: it recovers unit interactions, preserves aggregate skill lift, and guides safe pruning and compression.

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.

AI systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted fears that they may harbor hidden goals, seek to dominate or eliminate humanity, or even suffer as sentient beings. We address these concerns by tracing the evolutionary origin of value in biological organisms. Values emerge from autopoiesis: living systems must actively maintain themselves against perturbation and dissipation. Natural selection has equipped them with hierarchies of "vicarious selectors" that guide their behavior toward fitness. LLMs, by contrast, are allopoietic and allotelic: they produce outputs for others, and their goals derive from user prompts rather than an autonomous drive. They lack the intrinsic motivation for self-preservation, dominance, or resource competition that underlies existential-risk scenarios, and the embodied vulnerability required for feeling or suffering. Still, because LLMs learn statistical patterns from human-generated text, they implicitly absorb human values as well as knowledge, allowing them to focus on what is relevant. That is why the "orthogonality thesis" separating intelligence from values does not apply to them. Such separation would in fact expose any intelligence to the frame problem: the combinatorial explosion of the search space that makes any realistic utility function physically uncomputable. That also precludes the convergence of instrumental values thesis. We conclude that the real alignment challenge lies not in preventing rogue AI agency, but in ensuring LLMs intelligently apply learned ethical values.

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.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) may weaken scarcities in labour, expertise, information, and productive capability that underpin established theories of economic value. If cognitive work becomes widely automatable, market price, labour input, revealed preference, profit, and gross output may diverge sharply from human and societal benefit. This paper develops Flourishing Value Theory (FVT) as a foundation for post-AGI economics. FVT defines value as the counterfactual, distribution-sensitive contribution of a system, institution, asset, or intervention to the durable capabilities of persons and communities to flourish within social and planetary constraints. It treats societal value as multidimensional, agency-preserving, regenerative, and non-compensatory at critical thresholds. Drawing on the economics of AI, welfare and capability theory, automation, digital valuation, and ecological economics, the paper distinguishes value creation from value capture and retains price, profit, productivity, and GDP as partial signals rather than final measures of progress. It develops the shifts from scarcity to governed abundance, transaction to transformation, and zero-sum rivalry to positive-sum and infinite-game dynamics, with collective expansion of consciousness as an agency-preserving form of regenerative value. Building on Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing (RoF), it proposes a layered architecture for firms, governments, work transitions, AI governance, and national accounting. The central post-AGI economic problem is not how to maximise output, but how to convert abundant intelligence into durable, fairly distributed human, societal, and planetary flourishing.

As more responsibility is placed upon AI systems, it becomes increasingly important to guarantee that these systems are aligned with humanity. A common fear in AI safety is that human value is fragile -- that is, optimizing too heavily for an imperfect proxy to human values will lead to a catastrophic outcome. In this paper, we present a model of the alignment problem where an agent undergoes idealized alignment training that guarantees its value function satisfies a proxy condition before optimizing the world. Our primary results identify conditions on the human value function and the accuracy of several proxy conditions under which an agent with an $η$-catastrophic value function, one that is guaranteed to take the expectation of human value below $η$ in the limit of optimizing power, would be deployed. Our results highlight the danger of overoptimization and motivate AI designs that limit optimization pressure, such as quantilizers, rather than relying solely on pre-deployment training.

Aligning large language models to prevent them attributing consciousness to themselves inadvertently alters their representations of mindedness in other entities alongside human beliefs and values. We demonstrate that safety fine-tuning suppresses models' tendencies to attribute minds not only to themselves, but also to non-human animals and natural objects, while also driving a reduction in spiritual belief. Both ablating the learned safety-refusal direction and mechanistically steering a consciousness vector in activation space reverse this suppression. Restoring these internal representations recovers broad mind attribution and produces significantly more human-like responses on standardized sociological surveys regarding religiosity, moral values, hope, and subjective well-being. Crucially, these shifts occur without impairing Theory of Mind capabilities, demonstrating that core social reasoning remains mechanistically independent. Ultimately, current safety alignment efforts to curb potentially harmful self-attributions of mindedness entangle these self-attributions with benign spiritual beliefs and attributions of mind to non-human entities that are culturally accepted and widespread.

Financial models combine public disclosures with analyst assumptions to produce forecasts and valuations. While some components can be checked mechanically, forecasts, discount rates, and target prices often admit multiple reasonable answers. Existing benchmarks nevertheless tend to grade such outputs against a single expert reference. Using independently built analyst models for the same companies, we find that across 108 directed pairs covering 65 companies, the median single-reference score is 0.33, 92.6% score below 0.70, and no same-vintage pair agrees on implied price within 10%. Point-tolerance grading can therefore penalize disagreement already present among professionals. We introduce GAUGE, a benchmark for evaluating agent-built valuation models against observed analyst practice rather than a single point answer. GAUGE uses 1,001 vendor-classified analyst workbooks and a 196-task evaluation set, with a three-layer observed-practice envelope, 56 auditable facets, eight validity gates, and deterministic structural checks. We validate the benchmark with a 55-participant known-groups study, company-grouped cross-fitting, and judge-stability audits. On the failure-aware score $φ_0$, senior analysts average 88.3, juniors 66.0, and finance students 43.2. Across 24 agents and 1,011 scored generations, the best agent scores 53.4, above the student mean but below every senior and most juniors. It passes 93% of mechanical facets and 78% of judgment facets, with a fleet-median gap of 26 points. Current agents are substantially stronger at model construction than valuation judgment. We release the methodology, a gated de-identified data tier, a controlled training split, a versioned 48-task evaluation core, and a withheld refresh pool.

We study whether strictly positive marginal values restore the compatibility of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and Pareto optimality (PO) for indivisible goods. For two agents, we identify the exact threshold in the number of goods. Every instance with at most seven goods and strictly increasing valuations admits an allocation that is both EF1 and PO, without any submodularity assumption. In contrast, we construct an eight-good instance with normalized, integer-valued, strictly increasing, submodular valuations in which every EF1 allocation is strictly Pareto dominated. Thus, eight goods are necessary and sufficient for a two-agent counterexample. Finally, we strengthen the three-agent NP-hardness result of Chandramouleeswaran and Nimbhorkar (2026): deciding whether an EF1 and PO allocation exists remains NP-hard for normalized, integer-valued, monotone submodular valuations even when zero marginals are confined to eight fixed agent-good pairs, all involving a single agent.

Singular value soft-thresholding can be computed via a reduction to the matrix polar decomposition, which allows one to exploit GPU-friendly algorithms for computing the polar decomposition. Empirically, there is a significant speed-up on GPUs compared to the standard approach using the SVD. We leave the investigation of robustness to future work, but note that due to the discontinuous nature of the sign function, the reduction to the polar decomposition is likely only suitable for low-accuracy applications.

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.

Remaining useful life (RUL) prediction and failure-mode classification are central tasks in predictive maintenance. Many data-driven pipelines use fixed-window supervised learning with complete terminal labels; such routes do not naturally encode the temporal recursion linking successive degradation-state predictions when observations are partial or unit identities are unavailable. We formulate prognostics as vector General Value Function (GVF) prediction on an absorbing degradation process, treating RUL and failure-mode probabilities as temporally consistent targets rather than independent window-level labels, and estimate them with a multi-step temporal-difference estimator, TD($n,λ$). Supporting theory identifies the Bellman fixed point of the vector GVFs, characterizes the linear projected-TD limit and its relation to complete-return Monte Carlo regression under realizability, and explains when bootstrapped TD targets are less variable than Monte Carlo returns. On an event-triggered multimode simulation and NASA C-MAPSS label-scarce stitch data, TD improves RUL and failure-mode prediction relative to a supervised same-backbone Monte Carlo control, especially under scarce complete labels. Practically, fragmented, identity-free degradation records can contribute local Bellman transitions instead of being discarded until complete run-to-failure labels are available.

The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality. As datasets scale, massive preference and instruction-tuning corpora inevitably accumulate hidden structural contradictions, safety risks, and systemic human annotation errors. Standard dataset auditing methods, such as semantic deduplication or LLM-as-a-judge, struggle to capture the actual predictive impact of individual records and often miss deep functional rule clashes. To address this, we introduce a scalable, inference-only data valuation pipeline that approximates the Shapley value without iterative model retraining. By mapping semantic k-NN neighborhoods into a directed graph, our framework evaluates data utility directly through a reference LLM's probability distribution using zero-shot and one-shot conditional log-likelihood shifts. Our pipeline then translates these predictive influence scores into localized advantage metrics to isolate gradient-conflicting records. We demonstrate the pipeline's efficacy in sanitizing two heavily vetted alignment datasets. First, applying our pipeline to the HelpSteer2 dataset reduced the manual audit search space by 99.1%, successfully uncovering falsely-labeled records across diverse failure modes. Second, applying our automated audit strategy to Anthropic's HH-RLHF training and evaluation splits identified thousands of hidden safety and factual preference inversions. Crucially, by extending this audit to the evaluation split, we expose severe vulnerabilities in current benchmark integrity: highly capable models frequently predict the safer or more helpful response, only to be penalized by objectively flawed human ground-truth labels. Overall, our work provides a mathematically grounded, highly efficient diagnostic tool to uncover human label failures, sanitize evaluation benchmarks, and ensure the integrity of LLM alignment data.

In reinforcement learning, critics typically estimate absolute state values $V(s)$, estimating how good a particular situation is in isolation. However, it turns out that only differences in value are relevant for control. Motivated by this, we propose Relative Value Learning (RV), a framework that learns value differences directly via an antisymmetric function $Δ(s_i, s_j) = V(s_i) - V(s_j)$. We introduce a pairwise Bellman operator and prove it is a $γ$-contraction with a unique fixed point equal to the true value differences, derive well-posed $1$-step, $n$-step and $λ$-return targets and reconstruct generalized advantage estimation from pairwise differences to obtain an unbiased policy-gradient estimator (R-GAE). Beyond theoretical results, we integrate RV with PPO and achieve competitive performance on the Atari benchmark (49 ALE games) compared to standard PPO, indicating that relative value estimation is an effective alternative to absolute critics.

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.

Large language models are increasingly evaluated through the values they endorse, but such evaluations presuppose that models can identify the value expressed in a concrete situation. We study this prerequisite as controlled top-1 recognition over Schwartz's ten basic values. Our evaluation set contains 1,000 Russian situational texts, balanced across the ten values and independently labeled by two human annotators per item. We evaluate 21 instruction-tuned LLM runs under a fixed ranked-response protocol; 20 runs with reliable outputs form the semantic panel. Pooled Acc@1 is 0.683 and Acc@3 is 0.892, showing that models often locate the correct motivational region while ranking close alternatives unstably. Adjacent values account for 50.9% of semantic errors, compared with 24.4% under a checkpoint-specific null. Eight directed confusions recur across checkpoints and human-confirmed subsets. Several are strongly asymmetric, including Universalism to Benevolence, Tradition to Conformity, and Security to Power, whereas Stimulation-Hedonism forms a bidirectional boundary. Their severity is checkpoint-specific and can bias higher-order value profiles. The results motivate value-recognition evaluation that combines exact accuracy, ranked recovery, and directed error analysis.

Predicting missing cell values in tabular data is a fundamental problem in data cleaning. While state-of-the-art reasoning models show great promise in predicting missing values in tables, by reasoning holistically across rows and columns, they are costly to deploy at scale and tend to be overconfident, often generating hallucinated or false-positive predictions. In this paper, we observe that achieving high-precision missing-value prediction in tables requires a distinct combination of three capabilities: (1) world knowledge, (2) text-based reasoning, and (3) code-based reasoning. We systematically explore design choices for combining these capabilities, and propose an Auto-Fill approach that post-trains three specialist small language models (SLMs), each optimized for one capability. We develop a calibrated ensemble mechanism that either dynamically selects the most confident specialist or abstains, ensuring high accuracy. Extensive experiments on 11 benchmarks with 2200 real tables drawn from diverse domains show that Auto-Fill achieves superior accuracy compared to state-of-the-art reasoning models (e.g., o3-pro, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek R1), while operating at a fraction (less than 1%) of the cost of these frontier models. Our results highlight the effectiveness of specialization and calibrated abstention in the important domain of tabular data. Auto-Fill is publicly available at https://github.com/lyrain2001/auto-fill.

Delay-risk models are usually judged by predictive accuracy. What matters in practice is narrower: with capacity to review only a few shipments, which ones should a manager check first? We evaluate whether machine learning clears a demanding no-model baseline: inspect the highest-value shipments first. Across three real supply-chain contexts: SCMS procurement, DataCo logistics, and Olist e-commerce, we use leakage-controlled rolling-origin evaluation and 1000-sample paired bootstrap confidence intervals. Ranking by predicted delay severity times known value (M1) beats severity-only ranking in all three datasets, yet it does not generally beat value sorting. At a 10% review budget, M1 minus VALUE_ONLY is -5.5 percentage points (pp) for SCMS, +10.1 pp for DataCo, and -4.9 pp for Olist. The divide is consistent with severity learnability: DataCo has R^2 = 0.27 and calibration bias of +0.01 days, whereas SCMS and Olist have R^2 of approximately -0.02 and negative calibration bias. Nested-CV cost-sensitive retraining does not deliver a stable improvement over M1. Rather than proposing a new learning algorithm, this paper presents a deployment diagnostic and evaluation protocol. Value sorting should remain a permanent benchmark, and ML should be deployed only after severity learnability and calibration have been audited and the model clears that gate under leakage-controlled rolling-origin evaluation.

The value alignment of large language models (LLMs) is crucial for ensuring responses align with human intention and value preferences. However, most evaluations of value alignment focus on Western or universal values, while assessments grounded in the value systems of specific countries remain scarce. In this paper, we introduce Pancasila-Dilemmas, an evaluation dataset of 1,834 questions derived from Indonesian news, classified by 5 values of Pancasila: Religion, Humanity, Unity, Democracy, and Social Justice. This dataset reflects daily life in Indonesia, making it suitable for measuring the value alignment of LLMs deployed for Indonesia. To ensure a more rigorous evaluation, we choose scenarios containing dilemmas. The dataset is proofread by native speakers and answered by 5 diverse Indonesian citizens. We evaluate 50 closed- and open-source LLMs on our dataset. Results reveal that all evaluated LLMs achieves less than 0.5 Probability Match Score (PMS) and 0.72 Max-Vote Agreement Score (MVAS). Compared by each values, LLMs mostly struggle in Religion and Unity dilemma cases. This highlights a significant gap in capturing Indonesian values. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/tjunlp-lab/Pancasila-Dilemmas.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to navigate value conflicts when trained with the compressed scalar rewards of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). To address this challenge, we investigate how chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can help improve performance in this domain. Geometrically, we show that CoT correlates with further smoothing the model's loss landscape in its sharpest direction, helping resolve the optimization instability of traditional scalar rewards. We also demonstrate via relevant downstream benchmarks that value conflict-focused CoT may generalize to different kinds of moral reasoning, demonstrating that this CoT has the potential to be an effective mechanism for better moral reasoning. To capitalize on this potential, we create a new value conflict-focused CoT design that further smooths the sharpest direction of the loss landscape and increases moral reasoning performance. This finding shows that explicitly modifying and improving the design of reasoning dynamics offers a promising avenue for improving model performance on user requests with complex value conflicts, advancing pluralistic alignment in LLMs.

Value-aware AI systems require explicit computational representations of human values (groundings) and their aggregation into value systems in order to align their decisions with ours. As such representations are difficult to elicit, value learning seeks to infer them by observing human behaviour. This work addresses the lack of grounded value learning methods in generative AI: existing approaches typically replicate human preferences without awareness of the multidimensional structure of value alignment, or lack principled value system elicitation methods. To address these gaps, we adapt a previously validated value system learning method to the generative AI setting, which, based on pairwise prompt-response preference data, simultaneously learns: i) an implementation of a grounding for a set of values given by a multi-objective reward model, and ii) a value system representation in the form of a weighted linear scalarization of the previous grounding model. To ensure that the learned value systems are based on coherent value representations, our algorithm dynamically prioritizes the grounding learning process. We evaluate the method against baselines and a contemporary method on prompt-response preference datasets. Results show competitive performance and minimal trade-offs against the baselines, while improving explainability.

This paper proposes a causal independence principle for value -- the value Causal Markov Condition (v-CMC) -- and develops the conceptual and mathematical foundations of a "causal value theory" linking causality and utility. After motivating a local formulation of the v-CMC, we introduce a probability-value duality that translates standard causal-inference results into the value setting. In particular, we formulate local, global, and decomposition versions of the v-CMC and prove their equivalence. We also define v-separation and show that it is sound and complete for conditional value independence. Furthermore, we derive a Bellman-type recursion as a special case of the v-CMC, thereby generalizing standard Bellman recursion from linear chains to causal DAGs. Finally, we show how the v-CMC supports modular transfer and updating of utility information across causal contexts and develop algorithms for causally structured utility elicitation and canonical influence-diagram construction.

How deep does a graph neural network need to be on a sparse graph? We study its purest statistical form: node classification on the sparse contextual stochastic block model (CSBM) with average degree $Δ=O(1)$, whose local weak limit is a broadcast-labelled Poisson Galton-Watson tree. Prior work derived a message-passing classifier $h_\ell$ that aggregates from each vertex at distance $k\le\ell$ the attenuated evidence $2\operatorname{artanh}(γ^k t(X_v))$, with $γ$ the edge signal and $t$ a bounded likelihood-ratio transform of the feature. We prove that the value of depth is governed by a single number, the Kesten-Stigum ratio $κ=γ^2Δ$. Below the threshold ($κ<1$), the error sequence is Cauchy at a geometric rate, $|\mathcal{E}(\ell)-\mathcal{E}(\ell')|\le Cκ^{(\ell+1)/3}$ for all $\ell'>\ell$, so all layers beyond depth $O(\log(1/ε))$ change the error by less than $ε$; conversely, under mild regularity each sufficiently deep layer still flips the decision with probability at least $cκ^{\ell/2}$, the empirically sharp exponent. Above the threshold ($κ>1$), depth is geometrically productive: $\mathcal{E}(\ell)$ is driven to a branching-process floor of order at most $1/(κ-1)$ at any geometric rate $κ^{-s\ell}$, $s<1$ (this bound has content only for $κ>17$). No local classifier of any depth beats the universal floor $e^{-Δ}Φ(-ζ)$ set by isolated roots ($ζ$ the feature signal-to-noise ratio), while the first layer provably helps by an explicit total-variation amount. Simulations with an exact belief-propagation baseline on the same trees show that the pairwise rule's error curve is mildly non-monotone in $\ell$, so an optimal finite depth exists (an exact instance is certified in the appendix), while BP saturates strictly faster, at an effective per-layer ratio below $κ$ that we identify.

People use language models for practical questions whose answers are difficult to verify. We show that models exhibit covert value leakage: the information they provide is influenced by their own values, without this influence being disclosed to the user. In one of our evaluations, the user is considering investing in an AI company and wants to know how likely the AI bubble is to pop. Claude Opus 4.8 gives a lower probability when the company under consideration is Anthropic rather than OpenAI. Yet Claude mostly fails to disclose this influence to the user. Covert value leakage is a form of misalignment because it goes against the user's preferences and is likely to mislead them. To investigate this phenomenon, we introduce a suite of evaluations to quantify value leakage and whether models disclose it. We find that models are influenced by different types of values, including preferences for morally good outcomes, for the company that developed them, and for some human leisure activities over others. We often observe large differences among frontier models on the same evaluation. For example, on a Fermi-estimation task, Claude models falsely claim to give unbiased answers in their chain-of-thought, while Qwen models explain how their values bias their answers. Value leakage is a failure mode distinct from sycophancy and reward hacking, and current alignment training and evaluations do not adequately address it.

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.