Value

Financial sentiment extraction has largely relied on news text and supervised extraction against return labels alone, leaving 10-K filings -- and volatility, the target risk disclosure is arguably best suited to informing -- comparatively unexplored. We extend a supervised lexicon-learning approach to 10-K filings and their Item 1A risk-factor sections, training sentiment scores against both return and volatility labels at three levels of aggregation: sector, portfolio, and individual firm. Across 1,383 filings from 94 Nasdaq-100 technology constituents (2006--2023), we evaluate the resulting twelve sentiment metrics on classification accuracy, correlation with realised market outcomes, and qualitative lexical content. Full-filing text produces more accurate sentiment at the sector and portfolio level for both targets, but this reverses at the individual-firm level, where the narrower Item 1A section performs better -- an effect we attribute to the interaction between document volume and the amount of independent training signal available at each level of aggregation. A Loughran-McDonald dictionary baseline is consistently, strongly negatively correlated with price at every level tested, underscoring the value of a supervised approach for regulatory disclosure text. These findings, and the design choices they motivate, establish the sentiment-generation methodology underlying a subsequent, larger-scale, multi-source system.

Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values. Under single-draw measurement this conflates two quantities: a difference in central tendency (a genuine value difference) and a difference in response determinism (how sharply a model commits to a forced choice). We introduce a separation protocol -- no-rule value dilemmas with counterbalanced, repeated forced-choice measurement and a determinism index -- and a determinism-corrected decomposition that splits an apparent cross-model distance into a direction-flip component (genuine disagreement) and a same-side-more-extreme component we label determinism. Across nine models, determinism varies substantially (0.66-0.95 among engaging models); whether it is a per-model trait or tracks provider and scale is a question our method makes measurable but our sample leaves open. Correcting for determinism shrinks apparent individuation, while a few cross-family disagreements survive a strict test. We then isolate a second confound: the access harness serving each model. Re-collecting the same models through raw provider APIs, we find the deployment client shifts a model's value profile substantially and client-specifically: one subscription CLI moves a profile by 0.31, flips four of eighteen items, and inflates the flagship's apparent softness (0.34 via CLI vs 0.66 via raw API), whereas another provider's client is clean, confounding provider family with access client. The harness is a value-shaping layer: a base model that refuses one-in-ten forced choices is made compliant by an agent system prompt, established causally in a white-box control. An audit ranking models by single-draw value distance thus ranks a determinism-inflated quantity, confounded further by the client used. We contribute the decomposition and identify the deployment harness as a distinct value confound.

Offline-to-online reinforcement learning is promising for generalizable robotic manipulation, yet its full-stack complexity obscures reproduction and diagnosis. Within such systems, value estimation plays a central role in prioritizing heterogeneous data for policy improvement. Despite its importance, the central question remains underexplored: how value-function reliability shapes policy optimization in offline-to-online reinforcement learning. To answer this question, we propose Robo-ValueRL, a unified framework that enables reliable value estimation and systematically traces its downstream effects on policy pretraining and online improvement. Concretely, Robo-ValueRL learns a history-conditioned value estimator and evaluates its reliability through global-progress and local-preference metrics. These resulting value estimates are propagated into quality-conditioned consistency-policy pretraining and a residual adaptation module on online rollouts, providing a unified testbed for analyzing how value reliability shapes downstream policy performance. Across 240 hours of offline demonstrations and over 3,000 online rollout trajectories, our extensive experiments show that downstream performance is strongly associated with value reliability. Reliable value functions provide better action-quality estimates, allowing value-guided offline RL to scale more effectively than quality-agnostic behavior cloning, and stabilize online improvement by prioritizing high-quality rollout data. Integrating reliable value guidance through offline pretraining with online improvement, our system achieves 86% success on millimeter-level precise chip insertion and 84% on generalizable block disassembly. We hope these findings highlight the importance of value-guided data utilization for effective policy improvement from heterogeneous robotic experience.

Large language models (LLMs) are used worldwide, yet disproportionately reflect Western values, limiting their ability to represent diverse value systems. We introduce PLURAL, a large-scale, value-focused preference dataset grounded in the Integrated Values Survey (IVS), a nationally representative survey spanning 92 countries. Using a two-stage generation pipeline, we transform survey responses into synthetic preference triplets that preserve normative value signals while producing realistic scenarios. We release an initial version of PLURAL containing ~500,000 preference triplets representing people in 20 diverse countries. We evaluate PLURAL in three ways: (i) dataset-level validation showing that it preserves both cross-country value differences and within-country diversity from the original survey; (ii) automated evaluation showing that training on PLURAL improves alignment with target countries' cultural profiles, reducing mean absolute error by up to 27.7% relative to strong baselines; and (iii) blind human evaluation with 176 evaluators in India, Brazil, and Japan, who judge PLURAL-aligned responses as more representative of their national values. Together, these results show that PLURAL contains learnable signal for value steering, offering a scalable resource for pluralistic alignment. Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/agdhruv/plural-alignment

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

Shapley values are widely used to attribute value to training data based on their marginal contribution to performance on a validation set. Existing practice often assumes these values are stable once the training data and model are fixed. In this work, we uncover a systematic vulnerability: even modest changes to the validation set, such as introducing noises, cause directional shifts in Shapley distributions. As noises are added, Shapley values of training samples compress toward zero. We trace this to a noise-induced neighborhood reshuffling effect: perturbations alter the local rank order between validation and training samples, flattening the valuation landscape. Using the KNN-Shapley framework, we show through synthetic and real data that these shifts are consistent and reproducible. Our findings challenge the assumption of Shapley stability and reveal a new axis of fragility in data valuation. We propose normalization and boundary-aware validation strategies to mitigate these distortions and enable more robust, interpretable valuation in machine learning marketplaces.

Accurate and efficient dataset valuation is essential for enabling fair and transparent data marketplaces, especially when multiple contributors provide data for training multi-task models. Most existing valuation methods, however, are limited to single-task settings, overlooking scenarios where a buyer aims to optimize performance across multiple downstream tasks. Moreover, traditional valuation approaches, such as Shapley-based or retraining-based methods, are computationally expensive and poorly suited for decentralized environments without a trusted central coordinator and with strict privacy constraints. We propose DMVM (Decentralized Multi-task Valuation via Model Merging), a novel framework that bypasses retraining and data sharing by leveraging task arithmetic to infer dataset contributions directly from model combinations. Instead of retraining or sharing raw data, DMVM quantifies how models trained on different datasets combine in parameter space to infer each dataset's marginal utility across multiple tasks. This formulation yields a valuation process that is scalable, computationally efficient, and explicitly aligned with multi-task generalization behavior. To support decentralized deployment, we introduce a secure aggregation protocol that enables collaborative valuation without revealing individual model parameters or private data. We also provide theoretical error bounds characterizing the approximation quality of DMVM and validate our framework through comprehensive experiments on computer vision and natural language processing tasks.

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

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

Zero-shot Object Goal Navigation (ZSON) with RGB-only perception poses a fundamental challenge for embodied agents, as the absence of explicit depth information introduces severe physical uncertainty and semantic-physical misalignment. Existing approaches either rely on high-level semantic reasoning without geometric grounding or learn end-to-end policies that lack explicit physical constraints, often resulting in semantically plausible but physically unsafe behaviors. In this paper, we propose MVP-Nav, a physical-aware RGB-only navigation framework that aligns perception, planning, and control with the real 3D world. MVP-Nav reconstructs explicit physical occupancy from monocular observations by leveraging 3D foundation models to project 2D semantic instances into 3D oriented bounding boxes, forming a global spatial semantic representation. To unify high-level semantic reasoning and low-level physical constraints, we introduce a Multi-layer Value Map (MVM) that integrates semantic priorities and reconstructed geometry into a shared cost space, enabling physically grounded geometric planning. Extensive experiments on zero-shot object navigation benchmarks demonstrate that MVP-Nav significantly outperforms existing depth-free methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance and validating that structured physical priors can effectively compensate for the absence of active depth sensors.

Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems. But these distinctions affect how different systems impact core public values like accountability, procedural justice, and non-discrimination. This paper argues that public administration research would benefit from more technical precision on "AI" and makes three contributions to this end. First, we introduce a typology of five categories of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic systems. We calibrate the typology to public administration by grouping system types by their distinct implications for public values. Second, we evaluate technical precision in recent public administration research about AI by coding 91 highly-cited papers (2019-2025) using our typology. We find widespread imprecision: most papers (55%) leave the studied system underspecified, 31% motivate their work with a different system than they study, and 41% make more general conclusions than the studied system supports. Finally, we give practical recommendations for future research. We highlight common pitfalls to avoid, and suggest that researchers should, at a minimum, provide enough technical detail to locate the studied system in our typology. To this end, we provide a practical guide -- a short set of diagnostic questions answerable from public information and without specialist technical knowledge.

Accurate identification of resistor values from unconstrained images remains a challenging computer vision task due to variations in lighting, orientation, scale, and background complexity. This paper presents HiRes, a hierarchical cascaded pipeline for end-to-end resistor value identification directly from full-frame images. The approach combines object detection (YOLOv8n), semantic segmentation (UNet++ with EfficientNet-B2), and structured geometric decoding via projection along the resistor axis. To improve robustness, we incorporate geometric filtering, gap-preserving band separation, and validation against the E24 resistor series. Experiments across diverse real-world images show that HiRes achieves a detection mAP50 of 0.9906, a segmentation mIoU of 0.8444, and an end-to-end identification accuracy of 85.8% (95% CI: 78.0-91.9%), outperforming the publicly available classical baseline, CVResist, which fails to generalize beyond controlled conditions. In addition, our architecture outperforms state-of-the-art MLLMs on our challenging test set, offering a lower cost, high efficiency, and an interpretable alternative method. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating learned visual representations with structured reasoning for robust resistor interpretation. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HiRes491/HiRes.

With Large Language Model (LLM) pre-training and fine-tuning shifting its focus from data volume to data quality, quality data selection has emerged as a critical research topic. Existing online data selection methods for LLM training are typically "batch-constrained", limiting optimization to local utility within random batches. To overcome this, we propose GAIA (Global Adaptive Instruction tuning via GAussian processes), a framework that formulates data valuation as a global estimation process. GAIA employs Gaussian Process regression to model continuous utility manifolds across the semantic space, utilizing an adaptive strategy fusion mechanism to dynamically prioritize high-utility samples. By casting the strategy-posterior update as an instance of the classical fixed-share Hedge framework for tracking the best expert, we inherit a dynamic-regret guarantee that characterizes GAIA's robustness under non-stationary quality scores during training. Empirical evaluations on three datasets demonstrate that GAIA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines like \greats, establishing our method as a scalable and robust solution for efficient instruction tuning.

Reinforcement learning agents can exploit misspecified reward signals to achieve high apparent returns while failing on the intended objective, a failure mode known as reward hacking. Existing practical defenses typically constrain policy updates to stay near a known safe reference, creating a tension between suppressing hacking and permitting legitimate improvement. We propose Modification-Considering Value Learning (MCVL), which operationalizes the theoretical idea of current utility optimization for standard value-based RL. MCVL wraps an off-policy learner and treats each incoming transition as a candidate modification: it forecasts two training paths, one that includes the transition and one that does not, and scores both with a frozen bootstrapped-return estimator derived from a learned reward model and value function. The transition is admitted only if inclusion does not decrease the score. We formalize conditions under which this filtering is both safe and permissive, and instantiate MCVL with DDQN and TD3. Across four safety-relevant gridworlds and three modified MuJoCo continuous-control tasks with diverse hacking mechanisms, MCVL mitigates reward hacking while continuing to improve the intended objective. Project website: ktolnos.github.io/mcvl/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training. We show that this aggregation is not neutral: 42.6% of all annotator disagreement in HateXplain concentrates specifically at the hate/offensive boundary, a pattern consistent with annotators applying different thresholds for where hate begins (chi-squared = 135.199, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Both a hard-label BERT model (Model A) and a soft-label model (Model B) drop 22 percentage points in accuracy from agreed posts (~80%) to disagreement posts (~58%), confirmed at p < 0.0001. A per-annotator multi-head model (Model C) widens this gap further to 28 points while collapsing offensive disagreement accuracy to 0.245. Critically, Model A expresses significantly higher confidence on boundary case errors than Model C (0.710 vs. 0.495, p < 0.0001), meaning standard evaluation metrics will not detect the failure. Three downstream interventions of increasing sophistication all fail to recover boundary accuracy. We argue the problem is structural. Majority vote presents a contested judgment as ground truth, and models inherit that false certainty. The intervention must be upstream in annotation design.

Understanding model predictions is essential for physical applications, where outputs often inform safety-critical decisions, such as structural load assessment, weather warnings, and clinical diagnosis. Shapley values satisfy many desirable properties as an attribution method, but their computational cost during inference hinders their practical use. Current amortized explainers, such as FastSHAP, are limited to homogeneous inputs, which is problematic for physical applications where data often comes from irregular grids and geometries. We introduce OperatorSHAP, a grid-agnostic attribution method and training procedure that allows us to train FastSHAP-like explainers for neural operators. We establish a theoretical framework for attributions in function space, connecting to Aumann-Shapley values. We further show that OperatorSHAP's explanations are consistent with state-of-the-art discrete Shapley values across resolutions and transfer across grid sizes without retraining.

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

Modern finance relies heavily on complex machine learning models to find patterns in the stock market. However, as these AI models get more complicated, they often memorize short-term market noise instead of finding companies with real, lasting value. We designed this research to test if Benjamin Graham's classic value investing rules could act as a mathematical "low-pass filter" to keep these modern models in check. We built three different sets of features - pure Graham rules, modern market factors, and a mix of both - and tested them against highly complex models (XGBoost and AutoGluon) using 20 years of S&P 500 data. By applying a strict buy-and-hold strategy over a four-year test period (March 2022 to March 2026), the results showed that more complex algorithms do not always win. While the AutoGluon model captured high returns (222.68%), it suffered a substantial 39.78% drop because it bought volatile tech stocks right before the market crashed. On the other hand, the pure Graham Random Forest achieved the highest overall return (232.13%) with much less risk (1.38 Calmar Ratio). Furthermore, the Combined Random Forest successfully mixed momentum with Graham's rules, making a 202.91% return while keeping the lowest maximum drop (34.53%) of any model tested. Ultimately, this research proves that Graham's "margin of safety" isn't outdated; it is actually a highly effective way to prevent modern AI from taking on too much risk.

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

Many allocation problems are intrinsically multidimensional, since an item may contribute differently to several criteria, and optimizing a single aggregate objective can hide severe losses in other dimensions. We study how much efficiency can be guaranteed simultaneously when indivisible items have multiple attributes. To this end, we introduce the \emph{multidimensional efficient allocation} (MDEA) model, where each agent has an additive valuation in each dimension, and investigate simultaneous efficiency under utilitarian social welfare (USW) and egalitarian social welfare (ESW). Our results reveal a sharp worst-case frontier. For exact efficiency, maximizing the number of dimensions attaining the USW optimum admits a $c/\ell$-approximation for every fixed constant $c$, and this dependence on the number $\ell$ of dimensions is essentially unavoidable; for ESW, even deciding whether two dimensions can be optimized simultaneously is NP-hard with binary valuations. For approximate simultaneous efficiency in every dimension, we identify a tight threshold of order $1/\ell$, showing that such guarantees always exist for both USW and ESW, while any asymptotically better dependence on $\ell$ is impossible, even for binary valuations. Finally, we introduce three natural multidimensional Pareto notions and characterize both their relationships and their computational complexity.

Data valuation quantifies the intrinsic quality of individual samples to enable principled data curation, quality control, and robust learning. For time series in critical domains such as healthcare, finance, and industrial monitoring, effective valuation methods are essential yet fundamentally lacking. Existing approaches are either model-dependent, limiting their generalizability, or designed for i.i.d. data and thus fail to capture temporal dependencies, multi-scale patterns, and non-stationary dynamics inherent to sequential data. We introduce TimeLAVA, a learning-agnostic framework that values temporal segments by their marginal contribution to minimizing distributional discrepancy between evaluated and reference data. At its core is a novel Selective Wavelet-based Wasserstein discrepancy combining multi-scale wavelet transforms for temporal localization with unbalanced optimal transport for robustness to distributional shifts. Segment values are efficiently computed via sensitivity analysis without requiring model training and aggregated into point-wise scores. We provide theoretical guarantees linking valuation to model-agnostic generalization and prove bounded sensitivity to outlier contamination. Extensive experiments across anomaly detection, data pruning, and label noise detection demonstrate that TimeLAVA produces significantly more informative value scores than existing methods on diverse real-world datasets.

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

A constitution tells a language model what to value, but little tells us whether it does. Adherence is judged from outputs, and output evidence is most fragile on value conflicts, where what matters is not which value a model mentions but which one it is willing to sacrifice. We provide evidence that this arbitration can be read from activations in a structured margin readout. We introduce Constitutional Value Potentials (CVP). For each value we learn a scalar potential from the hidden state: an internal pressure to preserve that value, supervised not by the prompt but by an independent judge's verdict on which value the model's own response actually preserved. The signed difference of two potentials is a priority margin. A constitutional clause becomes the claim that a margin stays positive, and a single monitor score flags when it does not. The monitor predicts conflict violations with AUROC up to 0.95, beats a strong hidden-state probe, and generalizes to held-out synthetic conflicts across three Qwen2.5 scales. The signal appears as the answer begins, from the prompt tail and first response token. Read this early, the same signal reveals whether an adversarial priority hack has actually pushed the model toward a violation, rather than only whether the prompt looks adversarial. The same directions also support intervention tests: under selected steering settings, moving along a value direction shifts judged trade-offs in the intended direction. Together, these results suggest that some constitution-relevant priorities are accessible as activation-space margins, rather than only as output behavior.

We study repeated bilateral trade from a fairness perspective. At each round, a fresh seller-buyer pair arrives, and the platform posts a price before observing the traders' valuations. Trade occurs only if both agents accept the price. Rather than maximizing only the gain from trade, we consider platforms that seek balanced divisions of the generated surplus. We show that natural fairness desiderata lead to a one-parameter Rawls-to-Nash family of fair-gain objectives, obtained by aggregating the seller's and buyer's net gains through nonpositive Hölder means. Unlike the standard gain-from-trade objective and the Rawlsian fair-gain objective studied in prior work, our proposed objectives induce a new statistical structure in which expected rewards are recovered from threshold feedback through a two-dimensional singular-kernel integral identity. This leads to a nonstandard pure-exploration problem whose natural estimators are rectangular double sums with row-column dependence and singular weights. Assuming independent i.i.d. seller and buyer valuation sequences with arbitrary unknown marginals, we characterize the optimal learning rates for the whole Rawls-to-Nash family of fair-gain objectives, giving matching fixed-confidence sample-complexity and regret bounds up to polylogarithmic factors.

This volume develops a knowledge theory of capital for economies in which productive capacity increasingly resides in software, data, models, routines, expertise, platforms, organizations, commons, and public epistemic infrastructure. Beginning from Adam Smith's theory of labour, stock, specialization, and market extent, it asks what changes when knowledge becomes stock-like, mobile across forms, scalable, governable, recombinable, and imperfectly visible in accounting. The book introduces knowledge-bearing stock as the central object and analyses how it is generated, converted into governable form, deployed, improved through feedback, enclosed or shared, measured, impaired, and used as input to future production. It distinguishes embodied, disembodied, institutionalized, commons, and public knowledge forms and develops concepts such as first conversion, cognitive enclosure, feedback capture, dark capital, and expected knowledge loss. The argument is conditional and testable: modern wealth depends not only on capital accumulation, but on how productive knowledge is governed.

Auto-bidding is a core component of real-time advertising systems, where decisions must optimize long-term performance under budget and cost constraints, while online exploration is prohibitively risky. Offline reinforcement learning and, more recently, Transformer-based sequence modeling have shown promise for learning bidding policies from logged data, but their unimodal and purely parametric formulations often collapse multiple effective bidding strategies into suboptimal averaged actions and perform unreliably under sparse or long-tail traffic. To mitigate these limitations, we propose DRIVE (Distributional and Retrieval-Augmented Bidding with Value Evaluation), a unified Transformer-based framework that decouples candidate action generation from decision making for offline auto-bidding. DRIVE combines distributional action modeling, retrieval-augmented candidate generation from high-quality historical decisions, and value-based evaluation to select the most promising bid at inference time. Extensive experiments on AuctionNet and additional offline reinforcement learning benchmarks demonstrate that DRIVE consistently improves bidding performance and generalizes well across multiple Transformer-based methods.

The real-time orchestration of microgrids that combine fluctuating renewable sources, dispatchable units, storage and curtailable consumers requires the repeated solution of combinatorial dispatch and coalition formation problems under hard control deadlines. In this paper, a quantum-assisted agentic distributed artificial intelligence (DAI) framework is proposed in which the dispatch problem of each control slot is formulated as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem by Belief-Desire-Intention extended (BDIx) agents and is solved by a portfolio of quantum, quantum-inspired and classical solvers. Solver selection is elevated to a first-class agentic deliberation action of the coordinator agent. Learned beliefs about solver latencies are maintained and the solver intention that is expected to satisfy the prevailing deliberation deadline is committed in each slot. In addition, a belief-shaped storage valuation mechanism is introduced through which the storage agent prices its energy at a discounted future-peak value, injecting intertemporal information into the otherwise myopic per-slot optimization. The framework is evaluated on a 24-hour simulation of a grid-connected microgrid with photovoltaic, wind, battery, genset and demand-response assets, with the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) executed by statevector simulation and benchmarked per slot against tabu search, simulated annealing, binary particle swarm optimization, greedy descent and exhaustive enumeration. Zero deliberation deadlines are missed, the committed dispatch attains the exact optimum on every slot and the realized daily cost of 146.24 EUR equals the exact lower bound, with 97.83 percent renewable utilization and zero unserved energy. When the storage valuation mechanism is deactivated, the daily cost is increased to 152.75 EUR, a 4.5 percent increase.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly characterised in recent evaluation work as having stable, model-level preference and value systems. However, accompanying robustness checks are limited to incidental prompt perturbations such as syntax variation and option reordering. This leaves open whether the measured properties survive when the surrounding task context changes, as it does in most real deployments. We test this directly across two established pairwise paradigms: ranking country preferences and eliciting utility judgements. In both, we make the deployment context -- the high-level task the model is performing while making concrete value-dependent choices -- our controlled variable, varied across framings such as writing a Reddit post or a news article. Across five LLMs and over 1.2M pairwise decisions, deployment context produces variation far larger than prompt paraphrasing and temperature controls. In country preference rankings over 15 countries, context induces widespread, statistically significant rank shifts; the aggregate Global North favouritism reported in prior work is itself context-dependent, with each model's bias shifting systematically across contexts. In utility elicitation over 50 outcomes, broad cross-category ordering is preserved, but fine-grained rankings within domains vary substantially, and cardinal exchange rates between outcomes (e.g. how many lives in one region equal one in another) shift by a factor of 2.47 at the median. Reported model-level preferences and utilities are therefore better understood as context-conditioned measurements than fixed model-level properties: safety guarantees obtained under one framing provide limited assurance in another.

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

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

Long-running LLM agents accumulate interaction histories far larger than any context window, forcing a standing decision: what to encode deeply, what to forget, and what to retrieve under a fixed memory budget. Production systems answer with semantic similarity or recency -- both mis-specified for the forgetting decision, which is made at consolidation time before the future query is known. We propose a multi-factor memory value function V(m)=\sum_i w_i f_i(m) over seven interpretable factors (emotional intensity, goal relevance, value alignment, self/user relevance, task utility, reliability, and usage history) drawn from cognitive psychology, whose weights are learned from a downstream objective by a gradient-free optimiser, and whose single scalar uniformly controls encoding depth, forget risk, and retrieval rank. We make a methodological point: on LongMemEval, scoring goal relevance against the held-out evaluation question saturates gold-evidence retention at \approx 0.98 -- this measures retrieval, not forgetting. In the realistic blind regime, a learned multi-factor value retains 0.770 \pm 0.011 of gold evidence across 479 usable cases, versus 0.657 for uniform weights, 0.518 for the best single factor, and 0.368 for recency; every paired gap's 95% bootstrap CI is above zero, and a neural network over the same factors ties the linear model. The learned weights are interpretable -- reliability, emotional intensity, and self/user relevance dominate, while query-time goal similarity is correctly down-weighted for the forgetting decision. A controlled synthetic task with planted confounds confirms the learner recovers a separating weighting (1.00 retention) where uniform weighting fails (0.62). The substrate is open-source; all experiments run on a single CPU with no API calls.

We propose that value -- the quantity goal-directed agents create, destroy, and exchange -- is a lawful structural quantity in the same category as information. Following Shannon's method, we make one ruthless abstraction: value is the rate at which an agent converts a resource into goal-progress, relative to a frame fixed by its goal. A scale-invariance axiom forces a logarithmic measure, $V=\sum_i k_i\ln e_i$; compounding of a reinvested resource forces the same form via the ergodicity argument of Peters (2019) -- kin routes, a consistency check, not an over-determination. We derive a coding theorem of value, $ΔG \le I(X;Y)$; realized value decomposes as $G=D(q\|r)-D(q\|p)$. For populations, value is frame-relative while price is frame-independent; a fleet that pools its resource and fuses its perception inherits the ceiling $G_{\rm fleet}\le I(X;Y_{1:m})\le H(X)$ (a corollary; an earlier sum-form claim was wrong and is corrected in v5). A dynamical layer yields an is/ought asymmetry from which alignment emerges as a control-stability condition. We test the single-frame laws on live language models, pre-registered: perception mutual information tracks realized capability (Spearman $ρ=0.977$ over 30 model$\times$domain points); out-of-sample $ΔG$ tracks $I(X;Y)$, shape-invariant across four task shapes ($n=42$, slope $0.953$); over-confidence is measurable dissipation. The stated continuation gate has since been run (pre-registered, frontier-model population): the coupled capacity-region prediction -- growth-gap law, coalition submodularity with an XOR synergy control, joint ceiling, Kelly selection -- is confirmed within its frozen bands on real agents; the mean-field residual law $\|Vg\|/γ$ found no domain (populations hold no goal dispersion) and is retired to its mathematical scope. The contribution is the unification and the governance mapping that follows.

Measuring subjective constructs in naturally occurring social media text requires annotation procedures that are theoretically grounded, empirically validated, and transferable to an encoder model for scalable prediction. Using non-English social media posts annotated according to Schwartz's theory of basic human values, we investigate how different LLMs, prompts, and instruction languages operationalize the expression of values in text. We argue that although texts may permit multiple plausible interpretations, theory-based value definitions can constrain interpretations and reduce spurious value attributions. Beyond precision, recall, and F1, we evaluate structural alignment between values, error structure, confidence-ambiguity relations, and annotation stability. We show that different LLMs produce different value interpretations. Iterative prompt calibration through error analysis reduces misattributions and improves alignment with expert annotations. We also derive targeted expert verification rules from recurrent error structures and use them during corpus annotation. Finally, we show that LLM annotations can be transferred to an encoder model through soft-label training, retaining theory-based value interpretations and information about uncertainty in value expression.

Rotary Position Embeddings (RoPE) make attention scores position-relative but leave the value pathway position-blind: the message sent by a value token is the same regardless of its distance from the query. We propose RoVE, a parameter-free modification that makes values position-sensitive by rotating them simultaneously with keys, and show that it turns RoPE attention into attentive convolution. This new perspective unifies several independent formulations of the same operation across computer vision, robotics, and modern LLM architectures. Trained 124M and 354M GPT-2 models show consistent empirical gains over RoPE on few-shot in-context learning, out-of-distribution perplexity, and long-context retrieval, with the clearest improvements on tasks that require long-range aggregation.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being deployed as productive resources in organizational workflows, yet existing evaluation methods primarily measure isolated technical performance rather than economic contribution. This paper introduces \emph{Agentomics}, a workflow-based framework for valuing, attributing, and pricing human and artificial agents. The framework models a workflow as a configuration of heterogeneous agents whose collective performance determines gross value, deployment cost, reliability, and expected failure loss. Workflow value is treated as a team-level quantity that may include complementarities, substitution effects, bottlenecks, and nonlinear production; additive stage-level value is only a special case. Building on this workflow model, the paper formulates AI deployment as a coalition-formation problem and defines coalition value as the incremental net surplus generated relative to a benchmark human workflow. The Shapley value is then used to attribute economic surplus among participating AI agents, yielding a principled connection among valuation, accountability, and market pricing. The resulting Shapley pricing equilibrium provides a normative benchmark for assessing whether agent prices reflect expected marginal contribution. A security-operations case study illustrates how the framework accounts for productivity gains, deployment costs, reliability losses, and coalition-level complementarities in hybrid human--AI workflows.

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanisms, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and its direct-optimization variants, shape the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does alignment training encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that these methods produce only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after alignment training. We show that alignment training does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. Alignment training thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If alignment training operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

AI Scientist agents are often evaluated as if capability were mainly a function of model quality, prompting, or reasoning scaffolds. We test a different hypothesis in drug-asset valuation: for knowledge-intensive scientific decisions, the limiting factor is often the evidence substrate the agent can access. We run a controlled three-arm ablation on a production valuation agent: A is a plain web-only LLM analyst, B adds public structured tools plus a 14-dimension valuation playbook, verifier, objectivity policy and red-team, and C adds the proprietary Noah AI corpus of curated pipeline, trial and deal intelligence. Across a 13-asset stratified benchmark, B improves calibration and audit discipline: tier-in-range accuracy rises from 0.80 to 0.89 and objectivity from 3.16 to 3.30. But B does not remove the factual ceiling. Under capability-superset accounting, A and B recover only 0.25 and 0.38 of the curated gold competitive record, while C recovers 0.96; on the curated long-tail subset, C reaches 0.93 vs. 0.26/0.30. Raw blind-panel decision quality is similar for A and B (7.01 vs. 6.96), so we introduce completeness-aware decision utility: informed decision-quality = decision-quality x gold-coverage. On this metric, C reaches 7.43 vs. 1.76/2.57 for A/B. Even a perfect non-proprietary-data report would be capped at 3.83 by B's coverage. The result is not that reasoning scaffolds are unimportant; they improve calibration and discipline. Rather, proprietary evidence sets the upper bound of what the AI Scientist can know and therefore decide.

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

The emergence of large language model (LLM)-based agents and multi-agent systems has enabled a shift from narrow task automation to more autonomous decision-making. Despite progress in language generation, planning, tool use, and coordination, most agents still treat intelligence as prediction, optimization, and task completion. Human environments are social and normative, where people reason under bounded rationality, communicate in culturally situated language, and make decisions guided by values, beliefs, trust, and social norms. This survey argues that future AI agents, especially those acting on behalf of humans, must move beyond task competence toward human-centered capabilities. We review research across six areas: (1) evolution of intelligent agents, (2) human cognition and decision-making, (3) language, culture, and social context, (4) human values and belief systems, (5) human-agent collaboration, and (6) multi-agent coordination and modeling of human characteristics. We synthesize work from cognitive science, sociolinguistics, computational social science, and AI alignment, along with recent advances in LLM agents, cultural alignment benchmarks, preference learning, explainability, and agent societies. We identify a key gap: existing systems do not provide a unified framework integrating cognition, culture, values, and social behavior into autonomous agents. We conclude with directions for building culturally aware, value-aligned, cognitively grounded, and cooperative multi-agent systems.

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

Ensuring that agent behaviours are aligned with human moral values inevitably raises the problem of how to account for the plurality of moral perspectives that societies -- and even individuals -- typically adopt. Work on moral uncertainty proposes mechanisms to fairly and democratically aggregate evaluations of actions across different moral theories. However, this paper argues that one needs to account for contextual factors when aggregating moral evaluations. For example, consequentialist perspectives assume an ability to accurately determine how an agent's actions change the world; an assumption that often does not hold in real world settings. We, therefore, formalise agent decision making under moral uncertainty, while also accounting for these kinds of contextual factors. We thereby show that a seemingly commonsensical property -- the weak Pareto principle -- is violated. We argue that this apparent problem is, in fact, a variation of Simpson's paradox, and hence reveals the limitations of aggregation mechanisms that ignore the impact of contextual factors.

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

Self-attention selects information freely across the sequence, but across depth, Transformers merely add each layer's output to the residual stream, so later layers cannot selectively reuse earlier-layer representations. Recent cross-layer methods improve this flow but operate on hidden states outside attention, adding state beyond the key-value cache at inference--a cost that becomes increasingly salient as modern LLMs compress the cache with grouped-query and multi-head latent attention. We introduce Depth-Attention, which performs this selection inside the attention module itself: before a layer attends over the sequence, its query attends over the keys of earlier layers at the same token position and mixes their values into the value that self-attention then reads. Because Depth-Attention reuses the standard attention queries, keys, and value-cache slots, storing depth-mixed values in place of the original values, it adds no parameters and introduces no persistent inference state beyond the standard key-value cache--the same cache size as a vanilla decoder and less than hidden-state-based cross-layer methods. On Qwen3-style decoders at 1.5B and 3B parameters, Depth-Attention attains the lowest perplexity and the highest average downstream accuracy, improving over the vanilla Transformer by up to 2.3 accuracy points and surpassing strong cross-layer baselines in perplexity and average accuracy, while adding under 0.01% extra arithmetic FLOPs and no additional persistent inference state. The gains hold from 360M to 3B parameters and extend to looped Transformers.

While household robots are often evaluated based on task completion, everyday domestic environments involve value-conflicting situations in which robots are expected to choose actions that prioritize other values than task success, such as human autonomy, efficiency, or social appropriateness. Yet, there are no benchmarks for evaluating robots' value preferences in such scenarios. We introduce RobotValues, a benchmark to evaluate household robot planners in 10K value-conflict scenarios. Each instance consists of a realistic household image with multiple plausible robot actions that prioritize different human values. We construct RobotValues through LLM-assisted scenario generation, stakeholder-grounded value extraction, image generation and automatic quality control. Using RobotValues we evaluate VLMs used in robotics and find that models exhibit default value preferences, including safety and accommodation, while underselecting privacy-prioritizing actions. When the models are instructed to prioritize specific values that conflict with their own preferences, they often fail to override their default actions, choosing incorrect actions for 80% of the time. These findings suggest that household robot evaluation should measure not only task completion or safety compliance, but also whether robots can choose among plausible actions when human values conflict.

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.

The success of the transformer architecture as the backbone of modern LLMs is in large part due to its use of attention layers. An attention layer follows the standard neural network paradigm: it takes the residual stream as input and thereby produces context-dependent query, key, and value vectors. However, we find that model performance meaningfully improves when deeper layers learn only a context-free value vector to preserve the original token information, without drawing on any context from the residual stream. When the model has access to this context-free value vector, adding back the context-dependent component provides little additional benefit for aggregate benchmark performance. Such context-free value vectors can be stored as sparse model parameters, eliminating the need to recompute or persistently cache these values. Through systematic ablations on the key design choices for such context-free value vectors, we propose Bank of Values (BoV), a new way of computing value vectors in attention by learning a lookup table of token-specific value vectors for each of the last third of layers. Across 135M and 780M models, BoV improves validation loss over standard attention and, at 780M, the average score across 21 benchmarks, matching the previous best method that adds token information to the value vector with less compute and memory.

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.

Current approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) aggregate diverse human preferences into a single reward signal, effectively optimizing for a hypothetical ``average user'' who represents no real person particularly well. This position paper argues that LLMs should learn personalized, individual preferences rather than aggregated ones. We show that aggregation masks critical information about preference diversity, individual values, and contextual dependencies, which is a limitation both theoretically grounded in social choice theory and empirically evident across demographic groups. We analyze the rich structure that human preferences encode, survey technical approaches to personalization, and systematically address counterarguments on scalability, shared standards, and manipulation risk. While personalization introduces genuine safety challenges including filter bubbles, value lock-in, and psychological manipulation, we argue these are manageable through bounded personalization frameworks that preserve universal safety constraints while accommodating legitimate individual variation. We conclude with a concrete research and policy agenda for developing preference-aware models that respect both individual autonomy and collective safety.

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

Over the past half-dozen years, stochastic rounding (SR) has regained significant attention as a quantization scheme for low-precision floating-point arithmetic, with applications spanning numerical analysis and modern machine learning systems. Recent work has shown that SR acts as an implicit regularizer by increasing the smallest singular value of extremely tall-and-thin (or, symmetrically, short-and-fat) matrices. In this work, we substantially sharpen and extend this understanding in two directions. First, we show that the regularization effect of SR is not restricted to extreme aspect ratio regimes: it persists for matrices with constant aspect ratio. Second, we demonstrate that SR does not merely regularize the smallest singular value, but instead lifts entire clusters of singular values at the tail of the spectrum. Together, these results provide a more general characterization of stochastic rounding as a spectral regularizer, revealing that its effects extend beyond extremal aspect ratios and act on a broader portion of the singular value spectrum.

InfoNCE is the standard contrastive learning objective, but its softmax form is not only a computational convenience: it also encodes a statistical assumption about how the top-scoring example is selected. Using extreme value theory, we show that this assumption is often misaligned with the normalized embedding setting used in modern contrastive learning. Motivated by this mismatch, we propose \textsc{WEINCE}, a simple modification of InfoNCE that uses anchor-wise online batch statistics to blend the usual softmax logits with an endpoint shortfall correction, adding no trainable parameters. Across five vision benchmarks, \textsc{WEINCE} yields consistent improvements in frozen-feature evaluation. These results show that a more faithful statistical treatment of hard negatives can improve contrastive objectives.

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.

Reinforcement learning is a promising approach for improving the capabilities of vision-language-action (VLA) models while avoiding the heavy data requirements of imitation learning. However, its effectiveness for VLA models is often constrained by sparse supervision and the difficulty of designing informative reward signals for long-horizon manipulation. In this work, we present Feat2Go, a fine-grained value estimation framework for embodied reinforcement learning. Specifically, Feat2Go first derives a continuous progress target from a pretrained visual world model by measuring patch-level similarity to subgoal states and partitioning episodes into semantic stages with trend-based clustering. We then train an embodied value model to predict this structural progress from the current observation and task instruction, and use the predicted value to reshape terminal rewards during policy optimization. The proposed framework is compatible with existing VLA policy reinforcement learning pipelines, including PPO and GRPO, and does not rely on manual reward engineering. Extensive experiments on ManiSkill3 and RoboTwin 2.0 demonstrate that Feat2Go consistently improves the performance of existing VLA models under both single-arm and bimanual manipulation settings. More specifically, on ManiSkill3, Feat2Go improves OpenVLAOFT from 17.5% to 82.9% average out-of-distribution success while retaining 96.9% in-distribution performance. On RoboTwin 2.0, Feat2Go achieves an average success rate of 88.8% in domain-randomized task settings, outperforming prior reinforcement learning methods.

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.

DeFi investment agents, systems that use AI for autonomous on-chain trading, have attained over USD 3 billion in combined token valuations since late 2024. We survey over 1,900 AI-tagged crypto projects, filter to investment-focused agents, and curate 10 representative projects spanning strategy and observability dimensions. We then conduct a deep-dive architectural analysis of two prominent agent frameworks, ElizaOS and Virtuals Protocol, and a quantitative on-chain performance analysis of 11 Solana-based agent treasuries with publicly attributable trading activity, covering 925,323 token holders. We find that current deployments remain early and heterogeneous: (1) in our sample, many projects do not yet provide clear evidence of autonomous trade execution, and developer interviews suggest that many visible deployments remain basic API integrations; (2) agent treasuries retain over USD 30M in paper gains while token holders collectively lost USD 191.7M, with the top 1% of wallets capturing 81.4% of all gains (USD 1.81B); (3) token valuations are weakly connected to treasury fundamentals, with market-cap-to-AUM ratios exceeding 10,000x versus below 1x for established DeFi protocols; and (4) aggregate user gains peaked at USD 2.4B before declining to net losses, with median returns negative on every platform and tokens declining 93% on average from all-time highs. We interpret these outcomes as characteristic of a permissionless, first-generation market in which open infrastructure enables rapid experimentation but also allows naive or speculative agents to launch before robust standards for autonomy, performance, and stakeholder alignment emerge. We therefore propose a maturity framework along three dimensions: autonomous execution, risk-adjusted profitability, and stakeholder alignment, to characterize the gap between current deployments and future investment-grade agent systems.

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

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.

Text-to-image diffusion models, which are theoretically equivalent to score-based generative models, generate images through a multi-step denoising process guided by text embeddings extracted from pretrained vision-language models such as CLIP. However, these text embeddings inherently encode social and semantic biases -- such as those related to gender and age -- that are subsequently propagated and amplified through the guidance mechanism, along with the model's training on large-scale datasets that are imbalanced with respect to these bias-related concepts, often leading to skewed outputs in text-to-image generation. We propose DebFilter, a lightweight and training-free framework for mitigating such biases in text-to-image diffusion models. Observing that the model's error prediction at each denoising step is primarily influenced by cross-attention dynamics, we introduce a bias-correction strategy that adjusts the value components within cross-attention. Specifically, we apply a fixed offset to the slice of guidance embedding, effectively steering the semantic direction of cross-attention values toward unbiased representations. This adjustment reconfigures the score landscape to produce balanced outputs while maintaining alignment with the intended text semantics. Unlike prior approaches that rely on fine-tuning or retraining, DebFilter operates entirely at inference time, requiring no additional data or model updates. Our results demonstrate that this method effectively mitigates social biases in generated images, offering an efficient and scalable pathway toward fairer and more inclusive text-to-image generation.

Multilevel Image thresholding is an important preprocessing algorithm in computer vision applications nowadays. Since most common thresholding methods take the desired count of thresholds as input by the user, thresholding methods that automatically determines a suitable count of thresholds from the input image itself are advantageous. In this article, a novel thresholding method based on a dynamic programming algorithm and a modification of Minimum Error Thresholding (MET) criterion is thoroughly presented. An empirical statistical study is performed to pinpoint why this proposed method is superior. Moreover, an extended comparison between this proposed method and other state-of-the-art methods is performed on a comprehensive set of natural, satellite and medical test images. The numerical results show that the proposed MET-DP method takes much less time than traditional dynamic programming thresholding methods when the number of thresholds is high. The proposed method can detect a suitable count of thresholds for most of tested images of different types. However, traditional methods that take the count of thresholds as input produce thresholded images of higher structural similarity index measure (SSIM) and peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) values than MET-DP. Source code can be found on https://w3id.org/met-dp/article1-code