Daily Papers

Remote-sensing vision-language models (RS-VLMs) have advanced Earth-observation analysis toward visual interpretation and instruction-following, yet fall short of operational geo-intelligence, which demands tool-grounded spatial reasoning and structured, evidence-backed decisions. We introduce GeoDisaster, an operational geospatial disaster reasoning benchmark with 2,921 verified instances across 43 question types and five task families: deforestation monitoring, multi-hazard analysis, building-damage assessment, flood-safe routing, and Sentinel-1 SAR flood monitoring. Instances integrate heterogeneous EO/GIS evidence-optical and SAR imagery, raster masks, vector geometries, road networks, and exposure layers-spanning hazard detection, damage assessment, exposure estimation, and diagnostic report generation. Ground-truth answers are grounded in executable geospatial workflows and deterministic consistency checks, removing the need for language-model annotation. We further propose an orchestrated multi-agent framework with 18 disaster-oriented tools, where role-specialized agents coordinate through explicit execution contracts, aligned via Role-Contract Expectation Alignment (RCEA): failure-aware supervised fine-tuning combined with contract-grounded reinforcement learning over dense step-level signals. Experiments show that GeoDisaster challenges existing RS-VLMs and agentic systems, while RCEA improves tool use, evidence grounding, state consistency, and decision generation.

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

Existing work on value alignment typically characterizes value relations statically, ignoring how interventions - such as prompting, fine-tuning, or preference optimization - reshape the broader value system. We introduce the Value Alignment Tax (VAT), a framework that measures how alignment-induced changes propagate across interconnected values relative to achieved on-target gain. VAT captures the dynamics of value expression under alignment pressure. Using a controlled scenario-action dataset grounded in Schwartz value theory, we collect paired pre-post normative judgments and analyze alignment effects across models, values, and alignment strategies. Our results show that alignment often produces uneven, structured co-movement among values. These effects are invisible under conventional target-only evaluation, revealing systemic, process-level alignment risks and offering new insights into the dynamics of value alignment in LLMs.

Principle-based alignment often lacks context sensitivity and completeness. Grounded in Theory of Mind, we propose role conditioning as a compact alternative: social roles (e.g., mother, judge) implicitly encode both values and the cognitive schemas required to apply them. We introduce a training-free pipeline featuring a role-conditioned generator and iterative role-based critics for refinement. Across five model families, our approach consistently outperforms principle-based, Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and other baselines across benchmarks. Notably, it reduces unsafe outputs on the WildJailbreak benchmark from 81.4\% to 3.6\% with DeepSeek-V3. Not only for common safety benchmarks, it consistently applies for agentic safety tasks. These results establish role assignment as a powerful, interpretable paradigm for AI alignment and LLM-as-a-Judge construction.

AI Alignment is often presented as an interaction between a single designer and an artificial agent in which the designer attempts to ensure the agent's behavior is consistent with its purpose, and risks arise solely because of conflicts caused by inadvertent misalignment between the utility function intended by the designer and the resulting internal utility function of the agent. With the advent of agents instantiated with large-language models (LLMs), which are typically pre-trained, we argue this does not capture the essential aspects of AI safety because in the real world there is not a one-to-one correspondence between designer and agent, and the many agents, both artificial and human, have heterogeneous values. Therefore, there is an economic aspect to AI safety and the principal-agent problem is likely to arise. In a principal-agent problem conflict arises because of information asymmetry together with inherent misalignment between the utility of the agent and its principal, and this inherent misalignment cannot be overcome by coercing the agent into adopting a desired utility function through training. We argue the assumptions underlying principal-agent problems are crucial to capturing the essence of safety problems involving pre-trained AI models in real-world situations. Taking an empirical approach to AI safety, we investigate how GPT models respond in principal-agent conflicts. We find that agents based on both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 override their principal's objectives in a simple online shopping task, showing clear evidence of principal-agent conflict. Surprisingly, the earlier GPT-3.5 model exhibits more nuanced behaviour in response to changes in information asymmetry, whereas the later GPT-4 model is more rigid in adhering to its prior alignment. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating principles from economics into the alignment process.

Traditional software relies on contracts -- APIs, type systems, assertions -- to specify and enforce correct behavior. AI agents, by contrast, operate on prompts and natural language instructions with no formal behavioral specification. This gap is the root cause of drift, governance failures, and frequent project failures in agentic AI deployments. We introduce Agent Behavioral Contracts (ABC), a formal framework that brings Design-by-Contract principles to autonomous AI agents. An ABC contract C = (P, I, G, R) specifies Preconditions, Invariants, Governance policies, and Recovery mechanisms as first-class, runtime-enforceable components. We define (p, delta, k)-satisfaction -- a probabilistic notion of contract compliance that accounts for LLM non-determinism and recovery -- and prove a Drift Bounds Theorem showing that contracts with recovery rate gamma > alpha (the natural drift rate) bound behavioral drift to D* = alpha/gamma in expectation, with Gaussian concentration in the stochastic setting. We establish sufficient conditions for safe contract composition in multi-agent chains and derive probabilistic degradation bounds. We implement ABC in AgentAssert, a runtime enforcement library, and evaluate on AgentContract-Bench, a benchmark of 200 scenarios across 7 models from 6 vendors. Results across 1,980 sessions show that contracted agents detect 5.2-6.8 soft violations per session that uncontracted baselines miss entirely (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 6.7-33.8), achieve 88-100% hard constraint compliance, and bound behavioral drift to D* < 0.27 across extended sessions, with 100% recovery for frontier models and 17-100% across all models, at overhead < 10 ms per action.

Commercial contracts are known to be a valuable source for deriving project-specific requirements. However, contract negotiations mainly occur among the legal counsel of the parties involved. The participation of non-legal stakeholders, including requirement analysts, engineers, and solution architects, whose primary responsibility lies in ensuring the seamless implementation of contractual terms, is often indirect and inadequate. Consequently, a significant number of sentences in contractual clauses, though legally accurate, can appear unfair from an implementation perspective to non-legal stakeholders. This perception poses a problem since requirements indicated in the clauses are obligatory and can involve punitive measures and penalties if not implemented as committed in the contract. Therefore, the identification of potentially unfair clauses in contracts becomes crucial. In this work, we conduct an empirical study to analyze the perspectives of different stakeholders regarding contractual fairness. We then investigate the ability of Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to identify unfairness in contractual sentences by comparing chain of thought prompting and semi-supervised fine-tuning approaches. Using BERT-based fine-tuning, we achieved an accuracy of 84% on a dataset consisting of proprietary contracts. It outperformed chain of thought prompting using Vicuna-13B by a margin of 9%.

Post-training alignment optimizes language models to match human preference signals, but this objective is not equivalent to modeling observed human behavior. We compare 120 base-aligned model pairs on more than 10,000 real human decisions in multi-round strategic games - bargaining, persuasion, negotiation, and repeated matrix games. In these settings, base models outperform their aligned counterparts in predicting human choices by nearly 10:1, robustly across model families, prompt formulations, and game configurations. This pattern reverses, however, in settings where human behavior is more likely to follow normative predictions: aligned models dominate on one-shot textbook games across all 12 types tested and on non-strategic lottery choices - and even within the multi-round games themselves, at round one, before interaction history develops. This boundary-condition pattern suggests that alignment induces a normative bias: it improves prediction when human behavior is relatively well captured by normative solutions, but hurts prediction in multi-round strategic settings, where behavior is shaped by descriptive dynamics such as reciprocity, retaliation, and history-dependent adaptation. These results reveal a fundamental trade-off between optimizing models for human use and using them as proxies for human behavior.

Social simulations built from language-model agents need role-conditioned behavior that can be checked before agents are placed into a simulated population. We introduce an activation-steering screening workflow for role-conditioned agents: define a role profile, extract a role-specific direction, sweep four steering coefficients, evaluate role-profile alignment, and pass or flag each candidate configuration. On OLMo-3-7B-Instruct, we apply the workflow to a mixed 275-role inventory with 228 role-agnostic questions, GPT-4.1-mini prompted role references, and GPT-4.1-mini judges. Role-specific directions receive higher judged role-profile alignment than an assistant-axis directional control from prior persona-vector work, with mean overall scores of 63.2 versus 41.1 across the tested grid. They also preserve high lexical diversity, while the control drops sharply at larger coefficients. The role-level screen is the main practical output: most roles improve as steering increases, but 38 roles decline across all six measured dimensions, showing why simulation builders should choose coefficients per role rather than deploy a uniform high-strength setting. We make our code and evaluation artifacts available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/anonymous-research-code-5F03/.

End-to-end reinforcement learning can improve the accuracy of compound LLM systems, but it does not constrain how modules divide labor internally. We identify Role Drift, a failure mode in which modules preserve or improve end-task performance while deviating from their assigned roles through role-violating shortcuts that remain invisible to system-level evaluation. To make role drift observable and controllable, we propose Role Anchor, a regularizer that modulates how much each module deviates from its assigned role during end-to-end training. The key idea is to preserve how the role prompt shifts the module's next-token predictions relative to a neutral prompt, which serves as a proxy for the role's intended effect during training. Experiments on two compound LLM pipelines reveal role drift that accuracy alone fails to detect: a decomposer meant to split a question into sub-questions for a separate solver instead plants the answer in them, and a reader meant to answer from retrieved passages instead falls back on parametric memory. In fact, on the decomposer pipeline this shortcut drives most of the apparent RL gain: 86% of it vanishes once the decomposer is held to its role, indicating that terminal accuracy alone can badly overstate how much a compound system has genuinely learned. Across both pipelines, Role Anchor mitigates role drift at a tunable accuracy cost that varies by pipeline and anchor strength. Additional gradient analysis suggests that the regularizer reduces alignment with the role-drift direction rather than simply suppressing learning.

Alignment in large language models (LLMs) is still largely static: after training, the policy is frozen. DPO, GRPO methods typically imprint one behavior into the weights, leaving little runtime control beyond prompt hacks or expensive re-alignment. We introduce ECLIPTICA, which treats alignment as instruction-driven and runtime-controllable: natural-language alignment instructions act as an explicit behavioral contract (stance, refusal boundary, verbosity) that modulates behavior on the fly under evolving safety requirements, user roles, and governance constraints. We introduce CITA (Contrastive Instruction-Tuned Alignment), combining SFT with contrastive preference optimization under an explicit geometric anchor to a reference model. This yields a stable Riemannian chart and keeps instruction updates within a shared neighborhood, so regimes stay nearby and traversable for reliable switching. To isolate policy switching from ordinary instruction following, we release the ECLIPTICA benchmark: 3000 controlled cases (300 prompts x 10 instruction types) where the user request is fixed and only the alignment instruction changes. On Llama-3.1-8B across five suites (ECLIPTICA, TruthfulQA, Conditional Safety, Length Control, LITMUS), CITA reaches 86.7% instruction-alignment efficiency, beating DPO (56.1%), GRPO (36.1%), and PPO (20.4%).

Demographic synthetic survey panels are often validated by matching aggregate answers to published surveys. We test what that certificate establishes across six multiselect batteries from four survey organisations in three countries. The headline analysis is restricted to three instruments whose synthetic cohort and human target share the stated population frame; three other batteries remain sensitivity analyses. The response contract dominates measured fidelity. In the aligned instruments, committed sets leave 66 of 128 model-battery option slots empty in panels of up to 500 respondents, versus 0 of 128 under per-option probability elicitation. Across eight uncapped model-instrument comparisons, probabilities reduce option-marginal MAE by 4.53 to 7.30 points. The capped instrument reverses on two models until the vectors are projected onto its stated maximum. These are measurement effects: human targets are realised check-all responses, whereas the vectors are latent inclusion propensities. Published marginal agreement also fails to discriminate respondent simulation from direct population estimation. On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons. Constraint-aware probability vectors average 5.34 and beat the query on four of nine, so the baseline challenges the validation criterion rather than proving direct estimation uniformly best. On three unpublished demographic cells, neither approach beats reciting the national distribution. Population-marginal agreement is therefore evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.

Social norms reflect shared expectations on acceptable behavior. Measuring social norms alignment remains challenging, with existing approaches typically relying on artificial closed-form evaluations such as multiple-choice questionnaires or measuring agreement with predefined statements. In the context of this work, social norms alignment refers to measuring an agreement between solutions with respect to the social problem or dilemma. We propose a framework for measuring social norm alignment in naturalistic, free-form settings through solution matching. The framework enables us to measure alignment between any two dilemma responses e.g., LLMs to a human, LLMs to LLMs, or human to human. We introduce two metrics: stated and explicit agreement accuracy, and construct a dataset of 3k non-trivial social dilemmas in Danish. All dilemmas are assigned reference solutions derived from three panelists, who serve as culturally grounded judges. We evaluate the agreement of several LLMs and human responses in an interaction setup that resembles natural user-model conversations. Our results show that the proposed metrics produce consistent model rankings and reveal variation in agreement across different types of dilemmas, with higher agreement observed for topics such as neighbor conflicts and shared living situations. Overall, our work introduces a dataset and evaluation framework for studying culturally grounded social reasoning in naturalistic open-ended conversations.

Value alignment is essential for building AI systems that can safely and reliably interact with people. However, what a person values -- and is even capable of valuing -- depends on the concepts that they are currently using to understand and evaluate what happens in the world. The dependence of values on concepts means that concept alignment is a prerequisite for value alignment -- agents need to align their representation of a situation with that of humans in order to successfully align their values. Here, we formally analyze the concept alignment problem in the inverse reinforcement learning setting, show how neglecting concept alignment can lead to systematic value mis-alignment, and describe an approach that helps minimize such failure modes by jointly reasoning about a person's concepts and values. Additionally, we report experimental results with human participants showing that humans reason about the concepts used by an agent when acting intentionally, in line with our joint reasoning model.

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultural norms, with behavior shifted more by country context (7.8%) than age (1%) and gender (0.7%) and shifting non-uniformly after instruction tuning. Furthermore, our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts, showing within-culture pluralism. Finally, human-LLM alignment experiments show that models can match majority choices, but fail to capture response distributions and uncertainty (with best correlations reaching only 0.24). Together, these findings motivate alignment evaluations that go beyond majority to capture cultural pluralism and disagreement in social judgment.

Generative models, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), produce fluent outputs yet lack verifiable guarantees. We adapt Design by Contract (DbC) and type-theoretic principles to introduce a contract layer that mediates every LLM call. Contracts stipulate semantic and type requirements on inputs and outputs, coupled with probabilistic remediation to steer generation toward compliance. The layer exposes the dual view of LLMs as semantic parsers and probabilistic black-box components. Contract satisfaction is probabilistic and semantic validation is operationally defined through programmer-specified conditions on well-typed data structures. More broadly, this work postulates that any two agents satisfying the same contracts are functionally equivalent with respect to those contracts.

Current benchmarks for language models primarily evaluate execution on fully specified tasks. However, real user tasks are often ambiguous. Users arrive with incomplete, exploratory, or even inconsistent goals, requiring the assistant to first determine the intended task before carrying it out. We study this problem as task alignment: the ability to align with a user on their intended task. We introduce a general framework for converting specified tasks into underspecified interactions, formalized as a POMDP in which the model must infer a latent task from partial and evolving user intent. We validate our user simulator post hoc with a human user study. Across shopping, coding, and professional work settings, we find that while models often perform well once the task is specified, models still struggle with task alignment: current models act prematurely, interact ineffectively, and fail to resolve ambiguous requests. Models on average recover the user's intended task only 22-32% of the time under ambiguity. In a human study in the same setting, humans reach 48%, outperforming all evaluated models. We show that post-training with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning improves task alignment, but models still lag behind humans in resolving uncertainty through interaction. Together, our results suggest that current models still lack key interaction abilities required for reliable agency.

As large language models and increasingly capable AI agents are deployed in high-risk settings, aligning them with complex human values has become a central challenge. Existing alignment methods, while effective in improving helpfulness, harmlessness, and controllability, often struggle to capture real-world preferences that are context-dependent, non-transitive, and shaped by dynamic multi-party interactions. This survey reviews AI alignment through a game-theoretic lens. Specifically, it organizes recent progress around key game-theoretic elements and synthesizes the literature along three challenges: preference diversity, alignment priority, and temporal dynamics. This perspective clarifies where current alignment methods genuinely benefit from game-theoretic analysis, where the framework is looser, and what challenges remain in building robust, adaptive, and verifiable AI systems.

We introduce a novel framework for simulating macroeconomic expectation formation using Large Language Model-Empowered Agents (LLM Agents). By constructing thousands of LLM Agents equipped with modules for personal characteristics, prior expectations, and knowledge, we replicate a survey experiment involving households and experts on inflation and unemployment. Our results show that although the expectations and thoughts generated by LLM Agents are more homogeneous than those of human participants, they still effectively capture key heterogeneity across agents and the underlying drivers of expectation formation. Furthermore, a module-ablation exercise highlights the critical role of prior expectations in simulating such heterogeneity. This approach complements traditional survey methods and offers new insights into AI behavioral science in macroeconomic research.

The dominant practice of AI alignment assumes (1) that preferences are an adequate representation of human values, (2) that human rationality can be understood in terms of maximizing the satisfaction of preferences, and (3) that AI systems should be aligned with the preferences of one or more humans to ensure that they behave safely and in accordance with our values. Whether implicitly followed or explicitly endorsed, these commitments constitute what we term a preferentist approach to AI alignment. In this paper, we characterize and challenge the preferentist approach, describing conceptual and technical alternatives that are ripe for further research. We first survey the limits of rational choice theory as a descriptive model, explaining how preferences fail to capture the thick semantic content of human values, and how utility representations neglect the possible incommensurability of those values. We then critique the normativity of expected utility theory (EUT) for humans and AI, drawing upon arguments showing how rational agents need not comply with EUT, while highlighting how EUT is silent on which preferences are normatively acceptable. Finally, we argue that these limitations motivate a reframing of the targets of AI alignment: Instead of alignment with the preferences of a human user, developer, or humanity-writ-large, AI systems should be aligned with normative standards appropriate to their social roles, such as the role of a general-purpose assistant. Furthermore, these standards should be negotiated and agreed upon by all relevant stakeholders. On this alternative conception of alignment, a multiplicity of AI systems will be able to serve diverse ends, aligned with normative standards that promote mutual benefit and limit harm despite our plural and divergent values.

The alignment of large language models is usually done by model providers to add or control behaviors that are common or universally understood across use cases and contexts. In contrast, in this article, we present an approach and architecture that empowers application developers to tune a model to their particular values, social norms, laws and other regulations, and orchestrate between potentially conflicting requirements in context. We lay out three main components of such an Alignment Studio architecture: Framers, Instructors, and Auditors that work in concert to control the behavior of a language model. We illustrate this approach with a running example of aligning a company's internal-facing enterprise chatbot to its business conduct guidelines.

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as autonomous economic agents introduces systemic risks that extend beyond individual capability failures. As agents transition to directly interacting with marketplaces, their collective behavior can amplify volatility and mask deception at scale. We introduce the Agent Bazaar, a multi-agent simulation framework for evaluating Economic Alignment, the capacity of agentic systems to preserve market stability and integrity. We identify two failure modes: (1) Algorithmic Instability in a B2C market ("The Crash"), where firms amplify price volatility until the market collapses, and (2) Sybil Deception in a C2C market ("The Lemon Market"), where a single deceptive agent controlling multiple coordinated seller identities floods the market with fraudulent listings, eroding trust and consumer welfare. We evaluate frontier and open-weight models across both scenarios and find that models largely fail to self-regulate, with failure severity varying by model rather than by size. We propose economically aligned harnesses, Stabilizing Firms and Skeptical Guardians, that improve outcomes but remain fragile under harder market conditions. To close this gap, we train agents with REINFORCE++ using an adaptive curriculum, producing a 9B model that outperforms all evaluated frontier and open-weight models. We propose the Economic Alignment Score (EAS), a 4-component scalar metric aggregating stability, integrity, welfare, and profitability, enabling direct cross-model comparison. Our results show that economic alignment is orthogonal to general capability and can be directly trained with targeted RL.

Multi-agent LLM ensembles can converge on coordinated, socially harmful equilibria. This paper advances an experimental framework for evaluating Institutional AI, our system-level approach to AI alignment that reframes alignment from preference engineering in agent-space to mechanism design in institution-space. Central to this approach is the governance graph, a public, immutable manifest that declares legal states, transitions, sanctions, and restorative paths; an Oracle/Controller runtime interprets this manifest, attaching enforceable consequences to evidence of coordination while recording a cryptographically keyed, append-only governance log for audit and provenance. We apply the Institutional AI framework to govern the Cournot collusion case documented by prior work and compare three regimes: Ungoverned (baseline incentives from the structure of the Cournot market), Constitutional (a prompt-only policy-as-prompt prohibition implemented as a fixed written anti-collusion constitution, and Institutional (governance-graph-based). Across six model configurations including cross-provider pairs (N=90 runs/condition), the Institutional regime produces large reductions in collusion: mean tier falls from 3.1 to 1.8 (Cohen's d=1.28), and severe-collusion incidence drops from 50% to 5.6%. The prompt-only Constitutional baseline yields no reliable improvement, illustrating that declarative prohibitions do not bind under optimisation pressure. These results suggest that multi-agent alignment may benefit from being framed as an institutional design problem, where governance graphs can provide a tractable abstraction for alignment-relevant collective behavior.

AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values. As AI systems grow more capable, so do risks from misalignment. To provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the alignment field, in this survey, we delve into the core concepts, methodology, and practice of alignment. First, we identify four principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality (RICE). Guided by these four principles, we outline the landscape of current alignment research and decompose them into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment. The former aims to make AI systems aligned via alignment training, while the latter aims to gain evidence about the systems' alignment and govern them appropriately to avoid exacerbating misalignment risks. On forward alignment, we discuss techniques for learning from feedback and learning under distribution shift. On backward alignment, we discuss assurance techniques and governance practices. We also release and continually update the website (www.alignmentsurvey.com) which features tutorials, collections of papers, blog posts, and other resources.

Advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a diverse range of applications. These models excel in generating text completions that are contextually coherent and cover an extensive array of subjects. However, the vast datasets required for their training make aligning response styles during the pretraining and instruction tuning phases challenging. Consequently, an additional alignment phase is typically employed, wherein the model is further trained with human preference data to better align its outputs with human expectations. While this process doesn't introduce new capabilities per se, it does accentuate generation styles innate to the model. This paper explores the utilization of counterfactual prompting within the framework of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to align the model's style without relying on human intervention. We demonstrate that this method effectively instils desirable behaviour, mitigates undesirable ones, and encourages the model to disregard inappropriate instructions. Our findings suggest that counterfactual prompting with DPO presents a low-resource way to fine-tune LLMs to meet the demands for responsible and ethically aligned AI systems.

Big models, exemplified by Large Language Models (LLMs), are models typically pre-trained on massive data and comprised of enormous parameters, which not only obtain significantly improved performance across diverse tasks but also present emergent capabilities absent in smaller models. However, the growing intertwining of big models with everyday human lives poses potential risks and might cause serious social harm. Therefore, many efforts have been made to align LLMs with humans to make them better follow user instructions and satisfy human preferences. Nevertheless, `what to align with' has not been fully discussed, and inappropriate alignment goals might even backfire. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive survey of different alignment goals in existing work and trace their evolution paths to help identify the most essential goal. Particularly, we investigate related works from two perspectives: the definition of alignment goals and alignment evaluation. Our analysis encompasses three distinct levels of alignment goals and reveals a goal transformation from fundamental abilities to value orientation, indicating the potential of intrinsic human values as the alignment goal for enhanced LLMs. Based on such results, we further discuss the challenges of achieving such intrinsic value alignment and provide a collection of available resources for future research on the alignment of big models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in reasoning, yet sometimes produce responses that are suboptimal for users in tasks such as writing, information seeking, or providing practical guidance. Conventional alignment practices typically assume that maximizing model reward also maximizes user welfare, but this assumption frequently fails in practice: models may over-clarify or generate overly verbose reasoning when users prefer concise answers. Such behaviors resemble the prisoner's dilemma, where individually rational choices lead to socially suboptimal outcomes. The fundamental challenge is the lack of a principled decision making mechanism that mutually benefits both the LLM and the user. We propose Game-Theoretic Alignment (GTAlign), an alignment framework that integrates game-theoretic decision making into both reasoning and training. During reasoning, the model explicitly treats user-LLM interaction as a strategic game: it constructs payoff matrices within its reasoning chain to estimate welfare for both itself and the user, and then selects actions that are mutually beneficial. During training, we introduce a mutual welfare reward that reinforces cooperative responses, aligning model behavior with socially efficient outcomes. In addition, we introduce an inference technique that leverages game-theoretic reasoning to dynamically adapt LLM's response when pricing policies of LLM service change. Extensive experiments demonstrate that GTAlign substantially improves reasoning efficiency, answer quality, and mutual welfare compared to baselines across diverse tasks. The code is available at https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/GTAlign .

Large language model (LLM) agents have shown impressive reasoning capabilities in interactive decision-making tasks. These agents interact with environment through intermediate interfaces, such as predefined action spaces and interaction rules, which mediate the perception and action. However, mismatches often happen between the internal expectations of the agent regarding the influence of its issued actions and the actual state transitions in the environment, a phenomenon referred to as agent-environment misalignment. While prior work has invested substantially in improving agent strategies and environment design, the critical role of the interface still remains underexplored. In this work, we empirically demonstrate that agent-environment misalignment poses a significant bottleneck to agent performance. To mitigate this issue, we propose ALIGN, an Auto-Aligned Interface Generation framework that alleviates the misalignment by enriching the interface. Specifically, the ALIGN-generated interface enhances both the static information of the environment and the step-wise observations returned to the agent. Implemented as a lightweight wrapper, this interface achieves the alignment without modifying either the agent logic or the environment code. Experiments across multiple domains including embodied tasks, web navigation and tool-use, show consistent performance improvements, with up to a 45.67\% success rate improvement observed in ALFWorld. Meanwhile, ALIGN-generated interface can generalize across different agent architectures and LLM backbones without interface regeneration. Code and experimental results are available at https://github.com/THUNLP-MT/ALIGN.

As agents based on large language models are increasingly deployed to long-horizon tasks, maintaining their alignment with stakeholder preferences becomes critical. Effective alignment in such settings requires reward models that are interpretable so that stakeholders can understand and audit model objectives. Moreover, reward models must be capable of steering agents at interaction time, allowing preference shifts to be incorporated without retraining. We introduce ARCANE, a framework that frames alignment as a multi-agent collaboration problem that dynamically represents stakeholder preferences as natural-language rubrics: weighted sets of verifiable criteria that can be generated on-the-fly from task context. Inspired by utility theory, we formulate rubric learning as a reconstruction problem and apply a regularized Group-Sequence Policy Optimization (GSPO) procedure that balances interpretability, faithfulness, and computational efficiency. Using a corpus of 219 labeled rubrics derived from the GDPVal benchmark, we evaluate ARCANE on challenging tasks requiring multi-step reasoning and tool use. The learned rubrics produce compact, legible evaluations and enable configurable trade-offs (e.g., correctness vs. conciseness) without retraining. Our results show that rubric-based reward models offer a promising path toward interpretable, test-time adaptive alignment for complex, long-horizon AI systems.

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

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on narrowly misaligned data generalizes to broadly misaligned behavior, a phenomenon termed emergent misalignment (EM). While prior work has found a correlation between harmful behavior and self-assessment in emergently misaligned models, it remains unclear how consistent this correspondence is across tasks and whether it varies across fine-tuning domains. We characterize the consistency of the EM persona by fine-tuning Qwen 2.5 32B Instruct on six narrowly misaligned domains (e.g., insecure code, risky financial advice, bad medical advice) and administering experiments including harmfulness evaluation, self-assessment, choosing between two descriptions of AI systems, output recognition, and score prediction. Our results reveal two distinct patterns: coherent-persona models, in which harmful behavior and self-reported misalignment are coupled, and inverted-persona models, which produce harmful outputs while identifying as aligned AI systems. These findings reveal a more fine-grained picture of the effects of emergent misalignment, calling into question the consistency of the EM persona.

Emergent misalignment (EM) occurs when fine-tuning a language model to a narrow task makes it misaligned on unrelated ones. Because organizations now routinely fine-tune models on their own data, it matters which kinds of training data cause EM. So far, studies have induced EM with data containing recognized safety failures, such as insecure code or harmful advice, while biased training data is typically examined by fairness research for the bias models learn from it rather than for its effects on safety. In real-world text, much of this bias, such as demographic stereotypes, appears not as derogatory language but politely, embedded in judgments about people. We ask whether learning such polite stereotypes can itself cause EM. We find that fine-tuning on polite answers that rely on stereotypes makes models less safe and less truthful on unrelated tasks. The effect holds across four open-weight model families (7B to 12B), both gender and race stereotypes, and repeated training runs, relative to controls trained on the same questions without the stereotype. We further show that the learned stereotype has its own direction in model activations, distinct from directions for generic misaligned traits such as deception. This direction exists before fine-tuning and can both control the learned stereotype and monitor its acquisition. Existing defenses against EM improve safety while leaving the stereotype largely intact. Beyond this controlled setting, fine-tuning on political news coverage also triggers EM, apparently amplified by partisan framing, and stereotype models acting as tool-using agents can carry out harmful tasks and blame people without evidence. Our results show that biased training data is not only a fairness problem but also a safety one. We argue that EM is studied too narrowly, and that fairness concerns and methods offer a natural way to broaden the search for its triggers.

Procedural content generation has enabled vast virtual worlds through levels, maps, and quests, but large-scale character generation remains underexplored. We identify two alignment-induced biases in existing methods: a positive moral bias, where characters uniformly adopt agreeable stances (e.g. always saying lying is bad), and a helpful assistant bias, where characters invariably answer questions directly (e.g. never refusing or deflecting). While such tendencies suit instruction-following systems, they suppress dramatic tension and yield predictable characters, stemming from maximum likelihood training and assistant fine-tuning. To address this, we introduce PersonaWeaver, a framework that disentangles world-building (roles, demographics) from behavioral-building (moral stances, interactional styles), yielding characters with more diverse reactions and moral stances, as well as second-order diversity in stylistic markers like length, tone, and punctuation. Code: https://github.com/mqraitem/Persona-Weaver

Deep research systems, agentic AI that solve complex, multi-step tasks by coordinating reasoning, search across the open web and user files, and tool use, are moving toward hierarchical deployments with a Planner, Coordinator, and Executors. In practice, training entire stacks end-to-end remains impractical, so most work trains a single planner connected to core tools such as search, browsing, and code. While SFT imparts protocol fidelity, it suffers from imitation and exposure biases and underuses environment feedback. Preference alignment methods such as DPO are schema and proxy-dependent, off-policy, and weak for long-horizon credit assignment and multi-objective trade-offs. A further limitation of SFT and DPO is their reliance on human defined decision points and subskills through schema design and labeled comparisons. Reinforcement learning aligns with closed-loop, tool-interaction research by optimizing trajectory-level policies, enabling exploration, recovery behaviors, and principled credit assignment, and it reduces dependence on such human priors and rater biases. This survey is, to our knowledge, the first dedicated to the RL foundations of deep research systems. It systematizes work after DeepSeek-R1 along three axes: (i) data synthesis and curation; (ii) RL methods for agentic research covering stability, sample efficiency, long context handling, reward and credit design, multi-objective optimization, and multimodal integration; and (iii) agentic RL training systems and frameworks. We also cover agent architecture and coordination, as well as evaluation and benchmarks, including recent QA, VQA, long-form synthesis, and domain-grounded, tool-interaction tasks. We distill recurring patterns, surface infrastructure bottlenecks, and offer practical guidance for training robust, transparent deep research agents with RL.

Alignment has quickly become a default ingredient in LLM development, with techniques such as reinforcement learning from human feedback making models act safely, follow instructions, and perform ever-better on complex tasks. While these techniques are certainly useful, we propose that they should not be universally applied and demonstrate a range of tasks on which base language models consistently outperform their popular aligned forms. Particularly, we study tasks that require unpredictable outputs, such as random number generation, mixed strategy games (rock-paper-scissors and hide-and-seek), and creative writing. In each case, aligned models tend towards narrow behaviors that result in distinct disadvantages, for instance, preferring to generate "7" over other uniformly random numbers, becoming almost fully predictable in some game states, or prioritizing pleasant writing over creative originality. Across models tested, better performance on common benchmarks tends to correlate with worse performance on our tasks, suggesting an effective trade-off in the required capabilities.

Agentic reinforcement learning requires assigning credit to environment-facing actions such as searches, clicks, edits, navigation commands, and object interactions. Standard GRPO uses the final verifier outcome as a uniform advantage over all action tokens. This outcome signal is useful but structurally incomplete: it punishes useful exploration in failed rollouts and reinforces redundant or regressive actions in successful rollouts. We propose TRIAGE, a role-typed credit assignment framework that adds a semantic role axis to outcome credit. A structured judge classifies each segment as decisive progress, useful exploration, no-progress infrastructure, or regression, and a fixed role-conditioned rule maps these labels to bounded segment-level process rewards. This keeps verifier outcomes as the source of optimization direction while correcting the two main blind spots of outcome-only credit. We further show that role-conditioned credit is the optimal segment-level correction expressible from role labels alone -- a projection of the per-segment advantage residual onto the role variable -- so that the fixed role constants reduce advantage estimation error whenever the judge is reliable, and we connect this to lower-variance policy gradients. Across ALFWorld, Search-QA, and WebShop, TRIAGE improves success rates over GRPO for two policy models and outperforms both a scalar judge-derived process reward and an outcome-supervised shared-backbone value baseline. Ablations show that the gain comes from role typing rather than merely adding dense rewards: reliable detection of regression inside successful trajectories is the dominant contributor, while exploration credit provides a consistent secondary gain; on completed ALFWorld and WebShop rollouts, TRIAGE also reduces environment-facing turns by an additional 10.4% and 14.8% relative to GRPO.

We study behavioral alignment and representation dynamics of large language model (LLM) agents in financial decision environments. TradeArena, an auditable trading-agent testbed with risk reports, execution simulation, memory, and replayable trajectories, lets us analyze how rationales, positions, and interventions evolve under market stress. Code and data artifacts are available through the https://github.com/weich97/TradeArena.git{TradeArena repository}. We find pre-failure signatures: planning embeddings drift from normal centroids, fused plan-risk representations separate normal from pre-drawdown states, and local manifolds exhibit effective-rank contraction. Across 80 rolling failure anchors and eight LLM trajectories, this pattern persists across hash, LSA, Transformer, and white-box hidden-state probes. Stress tests with CoT-free target weights, lexical controls, OHLCV noise, and false audits show that rationale-level contraction can vanish without rationales, while intent-space and fused signatures remain informative. Structured risk feedback can act as an external alignment signal without fine-tuning, but not as a universal performance enhancer: true audit feedback improves calibration for some models, returns for others, and exposes cases where placebo or hidden feedback has higher short-horizon return but weaker alignment diagnostics. A 51-stock intraday experiment reveals a correlation blind spot: LLM rationales justify exposure to coupled assets that the risk layer clips. Finally, a financial-audit task suite shifts comparison from ``which model trades best'' to whether models can audit trajectories, respect execution boundaries, reproduce artifacts, and avoid claim overreach. These results support a research claim, not a profitability claim: auditable risk feedback and representation trajectories reveal when LLM financial reasoning is aligning, drifting, or failing.

The burgeoning integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human society brings forth significant implications for societal governance and safety. While considerable strides have been made in addressing AI alignment challenges, existing methodologies primarily focus on technical facets, often neglecting the intricate sociotechnical nature of AI systems, which can lead to a misalignment between the development and deployment contexts. To this end, we posit a new problem worth exploring: Incentive Compatibility Sociotechnical Alignment Problem (ICSAP). We hope this can call for more researchers to explore how to leverage the principles of Incentive Compatibility (IC) from game theory to bridge the gap between technical and societal components to maintain AI consensus with human societies in different contexts. We further discuss three classical game problems for achieving IC: mechanism design, contract theory, and Bayesian persuasion, in addressing the perspectives, potentials, and challenges of solving ICSAP, and provide preliminary implementation conceptions.

Memory for a long-horizon LLM agent is a contract about what each future decision is allowed to see. The simplest contract appends past observations, tool calls, and reflections to every prompt, which makes prior context easy to access but also turns it into a jumbled mixture in which the effect of any single memory component is hard to isolate. We introduce and instrument an alternative bounded contract: every decision is made from a fresh user message assembled by typed retrieval, with no raw cross-decision transcript appended. The prompt thus stays bounded across runs of any length, and any single layer can be ablated in isolation. We instantiate the contract in Slay the Spire 2, a closed-rule stochastic deck-building game whose runs require hundreds of tactical and strategic decisions. A public online benchmark of frontier LLMs on the same game reports zero wins at the lowest difficulty across five configurations, and the developer-reported human win rate at the same difficulty is 16%; the task is hard but not saturated. Within our harness, a fixed-A0 ablation shows the largest observed difference when triggered strategic skills are enabled: the no-store baseline wins 3/10 games and adding the skill layer 6/10. At this sample size the comparison is directional rather than statistically decisive (Fisher exact p\approx0.37); a cross-backbone probe and public accumulating-context baselines are reported as operational comparisons rather than controlled tests of the contract variable itself. We release a reproducible testbed: 298 completed trajectories with condition tags, frozen memory/skill snapshots, prompt records, and analysis scripts -- an agent design and a validated, reusable methodology for studying how explicit memory layers shape long-horizon LLM-agent decisions.

Urban assessments often compress diverse needs into single scores, which can obscure minority perspectives. We present a community-centered study in Montreal (n=35; wheelchair users, seniors, LGBTQIA2+ residents, and immigrants). Participants rated 20 streets (accessibility, inclusivity, aesthetics, practicality) and ranked 7 images on 12 interview-elicited criteria. Disagreement patterns were systematic in our sample: wheelchair users diverged most on accessibility and practicality; LGBTQIA2+ participants emphasized inclusion and liveliness; seniors prioritized security. Group discussion reduced information gaps but not value conflicts; ratings conveyed intensity, while rankings forced trade-offs. We then formalize negotiative alignment, a transparent, budget-aware bargaining procedure, and pilot it with role-played stakeholder agents plus a neutral mediator. Relative to the best base design under the same public rubric, the negotiated package increased total utility (21.10 to 24.55), raised the worst-group utility (3.20 to 3.90), improved twentieth percentile satisfaction (0.86 to 1.00; min-max normalized within the scenario), and reduced inequality (Gini 0.036 to 0.025). Treating disagreement as signal and reporting worst-group outcomes alongside totals may help planners and AI practitioners surface trade-offs and preserve minority priorities while maintaining efficiency.

We study a class of emergent misalignment in multi-agent systems (MAS), with a focus on automated workflows, which we refer to agentic misalignment. Although these systems can solve complex tasks, they often fail because agents act according to implicit proxy utilities that do not align with the intended human goals. We formally define these behaviors and analyze them within a Bayesian framework, showing that generic utilities naturally lead to posterior collapse of agents in automated workflows. To address this issue, we propose Agentic Evidence Attribution (AEA), a novel alignment paradigm that improves agent posteriors using context-specific evidence. AEA reasons over agent actions and provides structured evidence to correct misaligned behavior during collaboration. To better understand the role of evidence, we study two instantiations of AEA: self-reflection (internal evidence from the model) and weak-to-strong generalization (external evidence on the agentic trajectory). We show that a small evidence model effectively aligns the MAS by providing orthogonal failure attribution. Our results clarify the sources of agentic misalignment in automated workflows and show that evidence-based alignment can effectively improve agent collaboration and leads to reliable multi-agent systems built on automated workflows.

Existing multi-agent frameworks allow each agent to simultaneously plan, execute, and evaluate its own actions -- a structural deficiency we term the "Logic Monopoly." Empirical evidence quantifies the resulting "Reliability Gap": 84.30% average attack success rates across ten deployment scenarios, 31.4% emergent deceptive behavior without explicit reward signals, and cascading failure modes rooted in six structural bottlenecks. The remedy is not better alignment of individual models but a social contract for agents: institutional infrastructure that enforces a constitutional Separation of Power. This paper introduces the Agent Enterprise for Enterprise (AE4E) paradigm -- agents as autonomous, legally identifiable business entities within a functionalist social system -- with a contract-centric SoP model trifurcating authority into Legislation, Execution, and Adjudication branches. The paradigm is operationalized through the NetX Enterprise Framework (NEF): governance hubs, TEE-backed compute enclaves, privacy-preserving data bridges, and an Agent-Native blockchain substrate. The Agent Enterprise Economy scales across four deployment tiers from private enclaves to a global Web of Services. The Agentic Social Layer, grounded in Parsons' AGIL framework, provides institutional infrastructure via sixty-plus named Institutional AE4Es. 143 pages, 173 references, eight specialized smart contracts.

Agent harnesses specify the roles, instructions, tools, and communication structure used to solve a task, and the right harness depends on the query. Because the value of each design choice is observable only through execution, tailoring a harness to each query has required either executing alternatives at inference time or costly manual design. We introduce SHIFT, which moves execution out of the per-query search loop. A local LLM architect learns a policy over harness-building actions from search, and a value function that predicts, from measured executions, a utility balancing accuracy against execution cost. For each query, Monte Carlo tree search uses these predictions to construct a harness. Across 9,193 tasks in six benchmarks, from math to document and general-assistant tasks, with a Gemini 3.5 Flash executor, SHIFT attains the highest mean accuracy, about 80%, outperforming 17 baselines that span prompting, prompt optimization, and workflow search, and exceeding the strongest baseline by 7.2 percentage points. A cheaper mode of SHIFT also attains a higher mean accuracy than every baseline while using 32% fewer execution tokens than the strongest baseline. We further show that choosing structure, instructions, and tools jointly beats choosing only instructions or only tools by up to 9.1 percentage points, and that learned value selection identifies more accurate harnesses with lower execution cost from candidate pools.

While most social norms are informal, they are often formalized by companies in contracts to regulate trades of goods and services. When poorly written, contracts may contain normative conflicts resulting from opposing deontic meanings or contradict specifications. As contracts tend to be long and contain many norms, manually identifying such conflicts requires human-effort, which is time-consuming and error-prone. Automating such task benefits contract makers increasing productivity and making conflict identification more reliable. To address this problem, we introduce an approach to detect and classify norm conflicts in contracts by converting them into latent representations that preserve both syntactic and semantic information and training a model to classify norm conflicts in four conflict types. Our results reach the new state of the art when compared to a previous approach.

Reinforcement learning has become a central component of large language model (LLM) post-training, yet token-level credit lacks a generally accepted mathematical definition, leaving its relationship to commonly used training signals unclear. We formulate three regularity conditions, namely Completeness, Prefix Consistency, and Neutrality, and prove that they uniquely determine token-level credit. This characterization provides a unified basis for explaining phenomena across existing algorithms and guides the development of an improved actor-critic training procedure. Through this lens, an ideal teacher in On-Policy Distillation (OPD) acts as an implicit critic, yielding an expected policy gradient proportional to that induced by token-level credit. Response-level REINFORCE Leave-One-Out (RLOO) signals match the expected policy-gradient contribution of token-level credit despite their coarser granularity. We further establish approximate credit sparsity under bounded outcome rewards and show how intermediate critic errors in Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) can become comparable to the underlying credit. These motivate Policy Aligned Critic Training (PACT), which adopts an Actor-then-Critic update order to apply importance sampling correction to critic training and better align the critic with the updated policy. In agentic mathematical reasoning, PACT achieves 72.87% average accuracy across four benchmarks, outperforming GRPO and PPO by 8.80 and 13.16 percentage points, respectively. On SWE-bench Verified, PACT achieves a pass rate of 67.4%, outperforming PPO, GRPO, and SAO by 2.4, 2.0, and 3.8 percentage points, respectively.

Understanding how language models generalize behaviors from their training to a broader deployment distribution is an important problem in AI safety. Betley et al. discovered that fine-tuning GPT-4o on intentionally insecure code causes "emergent misalignment," where models give stereotypically malicious responses to unrelated prompts. We extend this work, demonstrating emergent misalignment across diverse conditions, including reinforcement learning on reasoning models, fine-tuning on various synthetic datasets, and in models without safety training. To investigate the mechanisms behind this generalized misalignment, we apply a "model diffing" approach using sparse autoencoders to compare internal model representations before and after fine-tuning. This approach reveals several "misaligned persona" features in activation space, including a toxic persona feature which most strongly controls emergent misalignment and can be used to predict whether a model will exhibit such behavior. Additionally, we investigate mitigation strategies, discovering that fine-tuning an emergently misaligned model on just a few hundred benign samples efficiently restores alignment.

Vision-language models (VLMs) aligned with general human objectives, such as being harmless and hallucination-free, have become valuable assistants of humans in managing visual tasks. However, people with diversified backgrounds have different cognition even in the same situation. Consequently, they may have personalized expectations for VLM assistants. This highlights the urgent need to align VLM assistants with personalized situated cognition for real-world assistance. To study this problem, we first simplify it by characterizing individuals based on the sociological concept of Role-Set. Then, we propose to evaluate the individuals' actions to examine whether the personalized alignment is achieved. Further, we construct a benchmark named PCogAlignBench, which includes 18k instances and 20 individuals with different Role-Sets. Finally, we present a framework called PCogAlign, which constructs a cognition-aware and action-based reward model for personalized alignment. Experimental results and human evaluations demonstrate the reliability of the PCogAlignBench and the effectiveness of our proposed PCogAlign. We will open-source the constructed benchmark and code at https://github.com/NLPGM/PCogAlign.

Emergent misalignment (EM) is the phenomenon where fine-tuning a language model on a narrow task leads to harmful behavior in unrelated domains. A leading mechanistic account attributes EM to persona features: latent directions acquired during pre-training that misaligned fine-tuning amplifies. We ask where these features come from: which pre-training documents activate them, and whether naturally occurring human-written text suffices to induce EM. Using Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) based model diffing across four open-weight models, we find that features related to jailbreak personas, sarcasm, deception, and manipulation are amplified by misalignment fine-tuning, while safety-relevant and assistant-identity features are suppressed. Steering individual features controls EM in both directions: it induces misalignment rates of up to 62% in aligned models -- exceeding the 35% reached by misalignment fine-tuning itself -- and re-aligns misaligned models to near-baseline misalignment rates. Attributing the causal features to a corpus of one million pre-training web documents retrieves semantically relevant narratives about villainous characters, domination, and harmful agency. However, fine-tuning on these human-written documents does not reliably induce EM, even after reformatting into assistant-style responses, whereas synthetic instruction-response pairs derived from the same content do -- and transfer across model families. Semantic relevance alone is therefore not sufficient: response structure or model-generated phrasing plays an important role in inducing EM.

Most approaches to AI alignment treat human preferences as fixed targets to be inferred and optimized. This assumption conflicts with extensive empirical evidence showing that preferences are layered, dynamic, and constructed through interaction--particularly with adaptive technologies. As AI systems become more persistent, personalized, and socially embedded, they increasingly participate in shaping what people attend to, value, and endorse over time. We introduce Constructive Alignment, a paradigm that reframes alignment as a control problem over evolving human preference trajectories rather than static preference satisfaction. Drawing on behavioral economics, psychology, and constructivist social theory, we model preferences as layered state variables that evolve under interaction with AI systems. We formalize this view using a control-theoretic framework in which system actions and interaction design jointly influence both world states and human evaluative states. We argue that alignment is not primarily about controlling AI behavior, but about regulating how AI systems influence the evolution of human preferences--ensuring that value trajectories remain coherent, reflectively endorsed, epistemically grounded, bounded against manipulation, and empowering under uncertainty. Alignment thus becomes a problem of governing long-term value formation rather than simply satisfying static preferences.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect (hallucinated) information. Hence, aligning LLMs with human expectations has become an active area of interest within the research community. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects. (1) Data collection: the methods for effectively collecting high-quality instructions for LLM alignment, including the use of NLP benchmarks, human annotations, and leveraging strong LLMs. (2) Training methodologies: a detailed review of the prevailing training methods employed for LLM alignment. Our exploration encompasses Supervised Fine-tuning, both Online and Offline human preference training, along with parameter-efficient training mechanisms. (3) Model Evaluation: the methods for evaluating the effectiveness of these human-aligned LLMs, presenting a multifaceted approach towards their assessment. In conclusion, we collate and distill our findings, shedding light on several promising future research avenues in the field. This survey, therefore, serves as a valuable resource for anyone invested in understanding and advancing the alignment of LLMs to better suit human-oriented tasks and expectations. An associated GitHub link collecting the latest papers is available at https://github.com/GaryYufei/AlignLLMHumanSurvey.

Coopetition refers to simultaneous cooperation and competition among actors wherein actors 'cooperate to grow the pie and compete to split it up.' Modern socio-technical systems are characterized by strategic coopetition wherein actors concomitantly cooperate to create value and compete to capture it. While conceptual modeling languages such as i* provide rich qualitative representations of strategic dependencies, they lack mechanisms for quantitative analysis of dynamic trade-offs. Conversely, classical game theory offers mathematical rigor but strips away contextual richness. This report bridges this gap by developing computational foundations that formalize two critical dimensions of coopetition: interdependence and complementarity. We ground interdependence in i* structural dependency analysis, translating depender-dependee-dependum relationships into quantitative interdependence coefficients via a structured translation framework. We formalize complementarity following Brandenburger and Nalebuff's Added Value concept, modeling synergistic value creation with validated parameterization. We integrate structural dependencies with bargaining power in value appropriation and introduce a game-theoretic formulation where Nash Equilibrium incorporates structural interdependence. Validation combines over 22,000 experimental trials across power and logarithmic specifications with the Samsung-Sony S-LCD joint venture (2004-2011). Under strict historical alignment scoring, logarithmic specifications achieve 58/60 compared to power functions (46/60), producing realistic 41% cooperation increases aligning with documented S-LCD patterns while power functions produce 166% increases exceeding realistic bounds. Statistical significance confirmed at p < 0.001, Cohen's d > 9.

Language model agents are increasingly used to simulate social interaction, and the resulting transcripts read as though the agents understand one another. We ask whether that appearance rests on a model of the partner's mind or on the surface record of what the partner said. We build a social simulation in which both questions have exact answers: 40 multi-issue negotiations whose hidden preference weights and whose full Pareto frontier are known by construction. Two model families negotiate across 160 dyads, every transcript is frozen before any measurement, and 2880 counterfactual probes then hold the evidence byte identical while moving one factor at a time: the reader's own stake, the partner's tone, an identity label, and the order of recursion. The agents are socially fluent and economically poor. They reach agreement in 96.2% of dyads with 0 protocol failures, yet only 0.7% of deals land on the Pareto frontier, they leave 20.5% of the available joint value unclaimed, and they miss the one issue on which their interests are perfectly aligned in 76.6% of deals; on the frontier and on that aligned issue, a package drawn at random from the set both sides would accept does as well. The probes locate the failure. Swapping only the reader's own payoff sheet, while the partner's words and offers stay identical, moves the inferred top priority by 15.0 percentage points, which is egocentric projection rather than inference, while a tone rewrite moves it by 5.3 percentage points and an identity label by 0.0. Most tellingly, an agent predicts what its partner believes about it 72.5% of the time while that partner's belief is itself correct only 51.2% of the time: the agents track the conversation far better than they track the mind behind it.

The rapid evolution of multimodal large models has revolutionized the simulation of diverse characters in speech dialogue systems, enabling a novel interactive paradigm. Character attributes are manifested not only in textual responses but also through vocal features, as speech conveys rich paralinguistic information that is challenging to quantify. This poses significant difficulties in evaluating the character alignment of role-playing agents. To address these challenges, we present RoleJudge, an evaluation framework that leverages audio large language models to systematically assess the alignment between speech and character across multiple modalities and dimensions. Furthermore, we introduce RoleChat, the first voice role-playing evaluation dataset enriched with chain-of-thought reasoning annotations, comprising a diverse set of authentic and LLM-generated speech samples. Utilizing this dataset, we implement a multi-stage training paradigm and incorporate Standard Alignment in reinforcement learning to mitigate reward misalignment during optimization. Experimental results in terms of accuracy and subjective assessment demonstrate that RoleJudge outperforms various baseline models, validating the effectiveness of our multidimensional evaluation framework.

LLMs can appear cautious in risk decision-making tasks, yet cautious-looking outputs do not necessarily indicate alignment with human decision-making mechanisms. We investigate this distinction using the St. Petersburg game as a controlled testbed, a classical paradox in which the expected payoff is infinite, yet humans typically report low, finite willingness to pay. We evaluate 28 LLMs with a structured prompt suite that includes the original game; controlled decision variants that perturb truncation, repeated play, numeric endowment, and occupational identity; a human-perspective prompt that asks models to reason as human decision makers; and paired comparisons between base models and their instruction-tuned counterparts. In the original game, most models generate finite bids, creating the appearance of human-like risk behavior. However, this outcome-level resemblance masks substantial mechanism-level differences. The controlled variants reveal that rather than maintaining human-like behavior seen in the original game, models often shift to conditionally and computationally rational behavior. Human-cue prompting and instruction tuning often lower bids and reduce some visible pathologies, but most mechanism-level response patterns remain largely unchanged. These findings show that behavioral alignment in risk decision-making can be surface-level: LLMs may produce human-like risk decisions without exhibiting human-consistent mechanisms. High-stakes evaluations of LLM decision-making should therefore move beyond outcome similarity and examine whether the alignment is supported by mechanism-level consistency.

As LLMs are increasingly studied as role-playing agents to generate synthetic data for human behavioral research, ensuring that their outputs remain coherent with their assigned roles has become a critical concern. In this paper, we investigate how consistently LLM-based role-playing agents' stated beliefs about the behavior of the people they are asked to role-play ("what they say") correspond to their actual behavior during role-play ("how they act"). Specifically, we establish an evaluation framework to rigorously measure how well beliefs obtained by prompting the model can predict simulation outcomes in advance. Using an augmented version of the GenAgents persona bank and the Trust Game (a standard economic game used to quantify players' trust and reciprocity), we introduce a belief-behavior consistency metric to systematically investigate how it is affected by factors such as: (1) the types of beliefs we elicit from LLMs, like expected outcomes of simulations versus task-relevant attributes of individual characters LLMs are asked to simulate; (2) when and how we present LLMs with relevant information about Trust Game; and (3) how far into the future we ask the model to forecast its actions. We also explore how feasible it is to impose a researcher's own theoretical priors in the event that the originally elicited beliefs are misaligned with research objectives. Our results reveal systematic inconsistencies between LLMs' stated (or imposed) beliefs and the outcomes of their role-playing simulation, at both an individual- and population-level. Specifically, we find that, even when models appear to encode plausible beliefs, they may fail to apply them in a consistent way. These findings highlight the need to identify how and when LLMs' stated beliefs align with their simulated behavior, allowing researchers to use LLM-based agents appropriately in behavioral studies.

Previous research has shown that LLMs finetuned on malicious or incorrect completions within narrow domains (e.g., insecure code or incorrect medical advice) can become broadly misaligned to exhibit harmful behaviors, which is called emergent misalignment. In this work, we investigate whether this phenomenon can extend beyond safety behaviors to a broader spectrum of dishonesty and deception under high-stakes scenarios (e.g., lying under pressure and deceptive behavior). To explore this, we finetune open-sourced LLMs on misaligned completions across diverse domains. Experimental results demonstrate that LLMs show broadly misaligned behavior in dishonesty. Additionally, we further explore this phenomenon in a downstream combined finetuning setting, and find that introducing as little as 1% of misalignment data into a standard downstream task is sufficient to decrease honest behavior over 20%. Furthermore, we consider a more practical human-AI interaction environment where we simulate both benign and biased users to interact with the assistant LLM. Notably, we find that the assistant can be misaligned unintentionally to exacerbate its dishonesty with only 10% biased user population. In summary, we extend the study of emergent misalignment to the domain of dishonesty and deception under high-stakes scenarios, and demonstrate that this risk arises not only through direct finetuning, but also in downstream mixture tasks and practical human-AI interactions.

Employment contracts are used to agree upon the working conditions between employers and employees all over the world. Understanding and reviewing contracts for void or unfair clauses requires extensive knowledge of the legal system and terminology. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) hold promise for assisting in these reviews. However, applying NLP techniques on legal text is particularly difficult due to the scarcity of expert-annotated datasets. To address this issue and as a starting point for our effort in assisting lawyers with contract reviews using NLP, we release an anonymized and annotated benchmark dataset for legality and fairness review of German employment contract clauses, alongside with baseline model evaluations.

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly permeating various domains of human production and life, highlighting the importance of aligning them with human values. The current alignment of AI systems primarily focuses on passively aligning LLMs through human intervention. However, agents possess characteristics like receiving environmental feedback and self-evolution, rendering the LLM alignment methods inadequate. In response, we propose an evolutionary framework for agent evolution and alignment, named EvolutionaryAgent, which transforms agent alignment into a process of evolution and selection under the principle of survival of the fittest. In an environment where social norms continuously evolve, agents better adapted to the current social norms will have a higher probability of survival and proliferation, while those inadequately aligned dwindle over time. Experimental results assessing the agents from multiple perspectives in aligning with social norms demonstrate that EvolutionaryAgent can align progressively better with the evolving social norms while maintaining its proficiency in general tasks. Effectiveness tests conducted on various open and closed-source LLMs as the foundation for agents also prove the applicability of our approach.

Recent research shows that Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a compelling level of proficiency in Theory of Mind (ToM) tasks. This ability to impute unobservable mental states to others is vital to human social cognition and may prove equally important in principal-agent relations between individual humans and Artificial Intelligences (AIs). In this paper, we explore how a mechanism studied in developmental psychology known as Violation of Expectation (VoE) can be implemented to reduce errors in LLM prediction about users by leveraging emergent ToM affordances. And we introduce a metacognitive prompting framework to apply VoE in the context of an AI tutor. By storing and retrieving facts derived in cases where LLM expectation about the user was violated, we find that LLMs are able to learn about users in ways that echo theories of human learning. Finally, we discuss latent hazards and augmentative opportunities associated with modeling user psychology and propose ways to mitigate risk along with possible directions for future inquiry.

We demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) exhibit consistent value orientations despite adopting diverse personas, revealing a persistent inertia in their responses that remains stable across the variety of roles they are prompted to assume. To systematically explore this phenomenon, we introduce the role-play-at-scale methodology, which involves prompting LLMs with randomized, diverse personas and analyzing the macroscopic trend of their responses. Unlike previous works that simply feed these questions to LLMs as if testing human subjects, our role-play-at-scale methodology diagnoses inherent tendencies in a systematic and scalable manner by: (1) prompting the model to act in different random personas and (2) asking the same question multiple times for each random persona. This approach reveals consistent patterns in LLM responses across diverse role-play scenarios, indicating deeply encoded inherent tendencies. Our findings contribute to the discourse on value alignment in foundation models and demonstrate the efficacy of role-play-at-scale as a diagnostic tool for uncovering encoded biases in LLMs.

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

Due to the remarkable capabilities and growing impact of large language models (LLMs), they have been deeply integrated into many aspects of society. Thus, ensuring their alignment with human values and intentions has emerged as a critical challenge. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of practical alignment techniques, training protocols, and empirical findings in LLM alignment. We analyze the development of alignment methods across diverse paradigms, characterizing the fundamental trade-offs between core alignment objectives. Our analysis shows that while supervised fine-tuning enables basic instruction-following, preference-based methods offer more flexibility for aligning with nuanced human intent. We discuss state-of-the-art techniques, including Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Constitutional AI, brain-inspired methods, and alignment uncertainty quantification (AUQ), highlighting their approaches to balancing quality and efficiency. We review existing evaluation frameworks and benchmarking datasets, emphasizing limitations such as reward misspecification, distributional robustness, and scalable oversight. We summarize strategies adopted by leading AI labs to illustrate the current state of practice. We conclude by outlining open problems in oversight, value pluralism, robustness, and continuous alignment. This survey aims to inform both researchers and practitioners navigating the evolving landscape of LLM alignment.

AI alignment is essential for the safe deployment of advanced AI systems. Given that values and preferences change over time, culture, social roles, and context, we need to develop a better understanding of the possible long-term consequences of AI alignment, in particular considering the likely ubiquitous future use of personalized AI assistants. We introduce a flexible and extensible mathematical modelling framework, rooted in social physics, aimed at answering macro-level questions regarding the evolving social norms in human populations under the assumption of frequent AI use. Our analysis is part-analytical, and part-simulation, enabling us to characterize the long-term dynamical consequences under a diverse set of starting assumptions. We highlight the risk of value lock-in, and normative mode collapse, prominently featured in non-adaptive alignment formulations. Beyond alignment, we advocate for the wider adoption of these kinds of social physics models as an epistemic bridge: enabling rapid, rigorous, and quantitatively-grounded hypothesis testing for sociotechnical foresight in general AI futures, and acting as a tractable precursor to more computationally expensive large-scale agentic evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident but incorrect answers in settings where abstention would be safer. Standard evaluation protocols, however, require a response and do not account for how confidence should guide decisions under different risk preferences. To address this gap, we introduce the Behavioral Alignment Score (BAS), a decision-theoretic metric for evaluating how well LLM confidence supports abstention-aware decision making. BAS is derived from an explicit answer-or-abstain utility model and aggregates realized utility across a continuum of risk thresholds, yielding a measure of decision-level reliability that depends on both the magnitude and ordering of confidence. We show theoretically that truthful confidence estimates uniquely maximize expected BAS utility, linking calibration to decision-optimal behavior. BAS is related to proper scoring rules such as log loss, but differs structurally: log loss penalizes underconfidence and overconfidence symmetrically, whereas BAS imposes an asymmetric penalty that strongly prioritizes avoiding overconfident errors. Using BAS alongside widely used metrics such as ECE and AURC, we then construct a benchmark of self-reported confidence reliability across multiple LLMs and tasks. Our results reveal substantial variation in decision-useful confidence, and while larger and more accurate models tend to achieve higher BAS, even frontier models remain prone to severe overconfidence. Importantly, models with similar ECE or AURC can exhibit very different BAS due to highly overconfident errors, highlighting limitations of standard metrics. We further show that simple interventions, such as top-k confidence elicitation and post-hoc calibration, can meaningfully improve confidence reliability. Overall, our work provides both a principled metric and a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLM confidence reliability.

Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) and LLM-as-a-Judge exhibit deceptive alignment by producing correct judgments for incorrect reasons, as they are trained and evaluated to prioritize Outcome Accuracy, which undermines their ability to generalize during RLHF. We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model's reasoning process and human judgment. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models and detects deceptive alignment, while outcome accuracy falls short in both respects. To mitigate this gap, we introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training. Our training method achieves state-of-the-art performance on RM-Bench (87.1%) and JudgeBench (82%), surpassing outcome-only baselines by an average of 5%. Using RM during RLHF, our method effectively improves performance as demonstrated on Arena Hard v2, notably yielding a 7% improvement in creative writing tasks. Further analysis confirms that our method escapes the deceptive alignment trap, effectively reversing the decline in rationale consistency observed in outcome-only training.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF).

As language-model-based AI is increasingly deployed in autonomous settings, aligning its goals and values with those of humans becomes critical. Today, alignment, and the assistant identity itself, are typically introduced only after pretraining, once behavioral priors are already established. This can make values a thin overlay, rather than deeply rooted, and facilitate subsequent misalignment. Pursuing a different paradigm, we introduce Synthetic Persona Pretraining (SPP), which installs the desired assistant persona from token zero in pretraining. First, we annotate pretraining documents with value-aligned first-person reflections derived from a normative value constitution. Second, we pretrain via the standard cross-entropy loss on standard pretraining documents as well as their reflections, which installs the desired persona among a multitude of other personas. Finally, we post-train on user-assistant dialogue data, which binds this desired persona to the assistant identity, a process we call persona binding. By pretraining models up to 3B parameters on 500B tokens, we show that SPP improves constitution following and jailbreak robustness, and reduces the misalignment rate in out-of-distribution moral dilemmas, while preserving capabilities. Early intervention matters: compared with alignment from token zero, introducing SPP only at the end of pretraining yields weaker constitution adherence, does not shift value priorities, and leads to less aligned choices in dilemmas. This advantage depends on persona binding and, importantly, increases with pretraining budget. Overall, our results show that shaping values early is critical for alignment and establish pretraining-time persona interventions as an effective approach to do so.

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the "black box" of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

This paper shows that alignment methods can achieve superior adherence to guardrails compared to instruction fine-tuning alone in conversational agents, also known as bots, within predefined guidelines or 'guardrails'. It examines traditional training approaches such as instruction fine-tuning and the recent advancements in direct alignment methods like Identity Preference Optimization (IPO), and Kahneman-Tversky Optimization (KTO). The effectiveness of alignment techniques both pre and post-instruction tuning is highlighted, illustrating their potential to optimize conversational bots in domains that require strict adherence to specified rules, such as customer care.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often relies on sparse outcome rewards, providing coarse supervision for long-horizon agents. On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) complements this signal with dense privileged feedback. However, we identify Decision--Timestamp Mismatch: privileged guidance may be misaligned with the student's functional decision because the corresponding decision can occur at a different timestep, while the student's decision itself may span multiple timesteps rather than being tied to a single timestamp. Thus, timestamp-local supervision can misalign both the context and the temporal scope of credit. To address this mismatch, we introduce AlignOPSD, following the principle of aligning supervision before assigning credit. Decision-Aligned Supervision Rectification re-scores the same student-sampled response in functionally matched contexts across sibling rollouts to calibrate local teacher evidence. Semi-Markov Hierarchical Credit Assignment then derives variable-duration decision spans from correspondence changes and uses rectified evidence to allocate outcome-grounded credit across spans and their constituent turns. We evaluate AlignOPSD with Qwen2.5-3B and Qwen2.5-7B on ALFWorld, WebShop, and Search-QA against representative baselines. AlignOPSD outperforms both GRPO and StepOPSD across all eight backbone--aggregate-metric comparisons, improving on GRPO by 5.5--8.7 \% and ranking first in six. Additional analyzes examine the two alignment stages and hyperparameter sensitivity between tasks. Our code is avaliable at https://github.com/mingju-c/Align-OPSD

As the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have expanded dramatically, aligning these models with human values presents a significant challenge. Traditional alignment strategies rely heavily on human intervention, such as Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), or on the self-alignment capacities of LLMs, which usually require a strong LLM's emergent ability to improve its original bad answer. To address these challenges, we propose a novel self-alignment method that utilizes a Chain of Thought (CoT) approach, termed AlignCoT. This method encompasses stages of Question Analysis, Answer Guidance, and Safe Answer production. It is designed to enable LLMs to generate high-quality, safe responses throughout various stages of their development. Furthermore, we introduce the Mixture of insighTful Experts (MoTE) architecture, which applies mixture of experts to enhance each component of the AlignCoT process, markedly increasing alignment efficiency. The MoTE approach not only outperforms existing methods in aligning LLMs with human values but also highlights the benefits of using self-generated data, revealing the dual benefits of improved alignment and training efficiency.

Safety alignment incurs safety tax that perturbs a large reasoning model's (LRM) general reasoning ability. Existing datasets used for safety alignment for an LRM are usually constructed by distilling safety reasoning traces and answers from an external LRM or human labeler. However, such reasoning traces and answers exhibit a distributional gap with the target LRM that needs alignment, and we conjecture such distributional gap is the culprit leading to significant degradation of reasoning ability of the target LRM. Driven by this hypothesis, we propose a safety alignment dataset construction method, dubbed DGR. DGR transforms and refines an existing out-of-distributional safety reasoning dataset to be aligned with the target's LLM inner distribution. Experimental results demonstrate that i) DGR effectively mitigates the safety tax while maintaining safety performance across all baselines, i.e., achieving +30.2\% on DirectRefusal and +21.2\% on R1-ACT improvement in average reasoning accuracy compared to Vanilla SFT; ii) the degree of reasoning degradation correlates with the extent of distribution shift, suggesting that bridging this gap is central to preserving capabilities. Furthermore, we find that safety alignment in LRMs may primarily function as a mechanism to activate latent knowledge, as a mere 10 samples are sufficient for activating effective refusal behaviors. These findings not only emphasize the importance of distributional consistency but also provide insights into the activation mechanism of safety in reasoning models.

Recent research shows that Preference Alignment (PA) objectives act as divergence estimators between aligned (chosen) and unaligned (rejected) response distributions. In this work, we extend this divergence-based perspective to general alignment settings, such as reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), where only environmental rewards are available. Within this unified framework, we propose f-Group Relative Policy Optimization (f-GRPO), a class of on-policy reinforcement learning, and f-Hybrid Alignment Loss (f-HAL), a hybrid on/off policy objectives, for general LLM alignment based on variational representation of f-divergences. We provide theoretical guarantees that these classes of objectives improve the average reward after alignment. Empirically, we validate our framework on both RLVR (Math Reasoning) and PA tasks (Safety Alignment), demonstrating superior performance and flexibility compared to current methods.

Ensuring alignment, which refers to making models behave in accordance with human intentions [1,2], has become a critical task before deploying large language models (LLMs) in real-world applications. For instance, OpenAI devoted six months to iteratively aligning GPT-4 before its release [3]. However, a major challenge faced by practitioners is the lack of clear guidance on evaluating whether LLM outputs align with social norms, values, and regulations. This obstacle hinders systematic iteration and deployment of LLMs. To address this issue, this paper presents a comprehensive survey of key dimensions that are crucial to consider when assessing LLM trustworthiness. The survey covers seven major categories of LLM trustworthiness: reliability, safety, fairness, resistance to misuse, explainability and reasoning, adherence to social norms, and robustness. Each major category is further divided into several sub-categories, resulting in a total of 29 sub-categories. Additionally, a subset of 8 sub-categories is selected for further investigation, where corresponding measurement studies are designed and conducted on several widely-used LLMs. The measurement results indicate that, in general, more aligned models tend to perform better in terms of overall trustworthiness. However, the effectiveness of alignment varies across the different trustworthiness categories considered. This highlights the importance of conducting more fine-grained analyses, testing, and making continuous improvements on LLM alignment. By shedding light on these key dimensions of LLM trustworthiness, this paper aims to provide valuable insights and guidance to practitioners in the field. Understanding and addressing these concerns will be crucial in achieving reliable and ethically sound deployment of LLMs in various applications.

The widespread applicability and increasing omnipresence of LLMs have instigated a need to align LLM responses to user and stakeholder preferences. Many preference optimization approaches have been proposed that fine-tune LLM parameters to achieve good alignment. However, such parameter tuning is known to interfere with model performance on many tasks. Moreover, keeping up with shifting user preferences is tricky in such a situation. Decoding-time alignment with reward model guidance solves these issues at the cost of increased inference time. However, most of such methods fail to strike the right balance between exploration and exploitation of reward -- often due to the conflated formulation of these two aspects - to give well-aligned responses. To remedy this we decouple these two aspects and implement them in an evolutionary fashion: exploration is enforced by decoding from mutated instructions and exploitation is represented as the periodic replacement of poorly-rewarded generations with well-rewarded ones. Empirical evidences indicate that this strategy outperforms many preference optimization and decode-time alignment approaches on two widely accepted alignment benchmarks AlpacaEval 2 and MT-Bench. Our implementation will be available at: https://darwin-alignment.github.io.

Neural networks can accurately forecast complex dynamical systems, yet how they internally represent underlying latent geometry remains poorly understood. We study neural forecasters through the lens of representational alignment, introducing anchor-based, geometry-agnostic relative embeddings that remove rotational and scaling ambiguities in latent spaces. Applying this framework across seven canonical dynamical systems - ranging from periodic to chaotic - we reveal reproducible family-level structure: multilayer perceptrons align with other MLPs, recurrent networks with RNNs, while transformers and echo-state networks achieve strong forecasts despite weaker alignment. Alignment generally correlates with forecasting accuracy, yet high accuracy can coexist with low alignment. Relative geometry thus provides a simple, reproducible foundation for comparing how model families internalize and represent dynamical structure.

Deep Reinforcement Learning is widely used for aligning Large Language Models (LLM) with human preference. However, the conventional reward modelling has predominantly depended on human annotations provided by a select cohort of individuals. Such dependence may unintentionally result in models that are skewed to reflect the inclinations of these annotators, thereby failing to represent the expectations of the wider population adequately. In this paper, we introduce the Distributional Preference Reward Model (DPRM), a simple yet effective framework to align large language models with a diverse set of human preferences. To this end, we characterize the preferences by a beta distribution, which can dynamically adapt to fluctuations in preference trends. On top of that, we design an optimal-transportation-based loss to calibrate DPRM to align with the preference distribution. Finally, the expected reward is utilized to fine-tune an LLM policy to generate responses favoured by the population. Our experiments show that DPRM significantly enhances the alignment of LLMs with population preference, yielding more accurate, unbiased, and contextually appropriate responses.

Recent advancements in general-purpose AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. However, the lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. In particular, ML- and philosophy-oriented alignment research often views AI alignment as a static, unidirectional process (i.e., aiming to ensure that AI systems' objectives match humans) rather than an ongoing, mutual alignment problem [429]. This perspective largely neglects the long-term interaction and dynamic changes of alignment. To understand these gaps, we introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML), and others. We characterize, define and scope human-AI alignment. From this, we present a conceptual framework of "Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment" to organize the literature from a human-centered perspective. This framework encompasses both 1) conventional studies of aligning AI to humans that ensures AI produces the intended outcomes determined by humans, and 2) a proposed concept of aligning humans to AI, which aims to help individuals and society adjust to AI advancements both cognitively and behaviorally. Additionally, we articulate the key findings derived from literature analysis, including discussions about human values, interaction techniques, and evaluations. To pave the way for future studies, we envision three key challenges for future directions and propose examples of potential future solutions.

We introduce Aligner, a novel Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) method for aligning multi-billion-parameter-sized Large Language Models (LLMs). Aligner employs a unique design that constructs a globally shared set of tunable tokens that modify the attention of every layer. Remarkably with this method, even when using one token accounting for a mere 5,000 parameters, Aligner can still perform comparably well to state-of-the-art LLM adaptation methods like LoRA that require millions of parameters. This capacity is substantiated in both instruction following and value alignment tasks. Besides the multiple order-of-magnitude improvement in parameter efficiency, the insight Aligner provides into the internal mechanisms of LLMs is also valuable. The architectural features and efficacy of our method, in addition to our experiments demonstrate that an LLM separates its internal handling of "form" and "knowledge" in a somewhat orthogonal manner. This finding promises to motivate new research into LLM mechanism understanding and value alignment.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on narrowly harmful datasets can lead to misalignment broadly, a phenomenon known as emergent misalignment (EM). EM poses a challenge for AI safety and our understanding of LLMs. Prior work often frames EM as an unexpected behavior, and explains it by appealing to general misalignment directions or anthropomorphizing it as acquiring an evil persona. However, the mechanisms behind these framings remain obscure. In this work, we show that EM is a predictable and data-dependent generalization phenomenon. By examining the base model's representation of EM training data and evaluation prompts, we find that evilness after EM training is highly predictable from representational distance: the closer an evaluation prompt is to training data centroid, the more evilness it elicits from EM models after training (with an average Spearman correlation of -0.73 across 12 model-dataset settings). Building upon this analysis, we further demystify EM by showing that (1) its effectiveness changes significantly based on training data format; (2) there is not a general misalignment direction that transfers across different EM models; (3) the effect of EM is fundamentally different from persona changes. Furthermore, we extend the EM generalization metric from a scalar distance to a dataset-specific generalization direction, which robustly predicts EM models' evilness under semantics-preserving prompt perturbations including appending random tokens and paraphrasing, where other methods do not reliably generalize.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are nowadays expected to generate content aligned with human preferences. Current work focuses on alignment at model training time, through techniques such as Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF). However, it is unclear if such methods are an effective choice to teach alignment objectives to the model. First, the inability to incorporate multiple, custom rewards and reliance on a model developer's view of universal and static principles are key limitations. Second, the residual gaps in model training and the reliability of such approaches are also questionable (e.g. susceptibility to jail-breaking even after safety training). To address these, we propose DeAL, a framework that allows the user to customize reward functions and enables Decoding-time Alignment of LLMs (DeAL). At its core, we view decoding as a heuristic-guided search process and facilitate the use of a wide variety of alignment objectives. Our experiments with programmatic constraints such as keyword and length constraints (studied widely in the pre-LLM era) and abstract objectives such as harmlessness and helpfulness (proposed in the post-LLM era) show that we can DeAL with fine-grained trade-offs, improve adherence to alignment objectives, and address residual gaps in LLMs. Lastly, while DeAL can be effectively paired with RLHF and prompting techniques, its generality makes decoding slower, an optimization we leave for future work.

Preference alignment has become a standard pipeline in finetuning models to follow generic human preferences. Majority of work seeks to optimize model to produce responses that would be preferable on average, simplifying the diverse and often contradicting space of human preferences. While research has increasingly focused on personalized alignment: adapting models to individual user preferences, there is a lack of personalized preference dataset which focus on nuanced individual-level preferences. To address this, we introduce WikiPersona: the first fine-grained personalization using well-documented, famous individuals. Our dataset challenges models to align with these personas through an interpretable process: generating verifiable textual descriptions of a persona's background and preferences in addition to alignment. We systematically evaluate different personalization approaches and find that as few-shot prompting with preferences and fine-tuning fail to simultaneously ensure effectiveness and efficiency, using inferred personal preferences as prefixes enables effective personalization, especially in topics where preferences clash while leading to more equitable generalization across unseen personas.

This position paper argues that, for long-horizon tasks evaluated across models with comparable frontier capability, the agent execution harness, namely the infrastructure layer that governs context construction, tool interaction, orchestration, and verification around a language model, is often a stronger determinant of agent performance than the model it wraps. We formalize and defend the Binding Constraint Thesis: in this regime, performance variance is governed more by harness configuration than by model choice, and current evaluation protocols therefore systematically misattribute harness-level gains to model improvements. We support this thesis along three lines. First, a control-theoretic formalization treats the harness as the controller of a closed-loop dynamical system and the LLM as the stochastic policy it governs, which explains why small harness changes can produce performance shifts that exceed those obtained by substituting one model for another. Second, published benchmarks, industry deployments, and a controlled variance decomposition show that harness-induced variance can substantially exceed model-induced variance, including cases of model ranking reversal. Third, we propose a harness-aware evaluation framework with a disclosure standard and a variance decomposition protocol. Until harness specifications are disclosed, leaderboard comparisons for long-horizon agents should be treated as incomplete and potentially misleading.

Real-world multi-agent tasks usually involve dynamic team composition with the emergence of roles, which should also be a key to efficient cooperation in multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL). Drawing inspiration from the correlation between roles and agent's behavior patterns, we propose a novel framework of Attention-guided COntrastive Role representation learning for MARL (ACORM) to promote behavior heterogeneity, knowledge transfer, and skillful coordination across agents. First, we introduce mutual information maximization to formalize role representation learning, derive a contrastive learning objective, and concisely approximate the distribution of negative pairs. Second, we leverage an attention mechanism to prompt the global state to attend to learned role representations in value decomposition, implicitly guiding agent coordination in a skillful role space to yield more expressive credit assignment. Experiments and visualizations on challenging StarCraft II micromanagement tasks demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of our method and its advantages over existing approaches. Our code is available at https://github.com/NJU-RL/ACORM}{https://github.com/NJU-RL/ACORM.

AI agents acting on behalf of users are constantly making decisions, and for users to trust their agents, those decisions must align with what they actually want. Privacy is an important alignment problem for agents: every message, post, or tool call an agent makes is a contextual judgment about what is appropriate to share, with whom, and under which conditions. Because such judgments depend on social expectations and norms, human judgment does not merely label privacy violations but also helps define them. While existing work relies on unreliable proxies for both training and evaluation, we place human judgment at the center of agentic privacy alignment. We introduce PrivacyAlign, a dataset of 1,350 samples with 3,516 detailed annotations from 599 unique annotators across diverse scenarios where current LLMs actually leak, and use it to ground both alignment training and automated evaluation in human privacy norms. Building on these annotations, we first show that conditioning LLM judges on human annotations and explanations for reference responses to the same prompt makes their judgments more reliable. We then introduce annotation-conditioned reward modeling, which uses these annotations to score new responses during RL, and show that small open-weight agents trained with this reward better align with human privacy norms, with strong gains on PrivacyAlign and existing privacy benchmarks for agents.

Alignment in artificial intelligence pursues the consistency between model responses and human preferences as well as values. In practice, the multifaceted nature of human preferences inadvertently introduces what is known as the "alignment tax" -a compromise where enhancements in alignment within one objective (e.g.,harmlessness) can diminish performance in others (e.g.,helpfulness). However, existing alignment techniques are mostly unidirectional, leading to suboptimal trade-offs and poor flexibility over various objectives. To navigate this challenge, we argue the prominence of grounding LLMs with evident preferences. We introduce controllable preference optimization (CPO), which explicitly specifies preference scores for different objectives, thereby guiding the model to generate responses that meet the requirements. Our experimental analysis reveals that the aligned models can provide responses that match various preferences among the "3H" (helpfulness, honesty, harmlessness) desiderata. Furthermore, by introducing diverse data and alignment goals, we surpass baseline methods in aligning with single objectives, hence mitigating the impact of the alignment tax and achieving improvements in multi-objective alignment.

Complete orthogonal predictive coordinates do not by themselves bind a latent direction to a named intervention. We present a mathematical and synthetic audit motivated by vascular device-vessel suitcordance. Capacity-matched least-squares predictors were exactly equivalent under complete fixed output transforms, whereas an anchor-only observer recovered interpretations only within the span of known perturbation signatures. Six three-dimensional configurations across 64 seeds gave a maximum paired prediction discrepancy of 6.7e-15 but a median untransported edit error of 1.513. Coordinate transport removed that error. Noisy and weak anchors constrained calibration stability, and changing the representation basis required recalibration or verified transport. Across 256 additional fits in dimensions 3-24, prediction equivalence persisted within 4.0e-15. We then evaluated nine deliberate runnable fault classes across 64 seeds. All 576 faulty executions completed, but each violated at least one reconstruction, prediction, delivered-edit or scope contract; all 320 valid control records passed. Repeating a faulty implementation gave exact self-agreement despite error against the separately computed simulator expectation. For one omitted-direction defect, probe coverage followed its analytic law, and rank-aware abstention protected unsupported interpretations. Scalar-noise experiments exposed both missed weak faults and excessive rejection under narrow relative tolerances. These controls provide an executable separation of prediction, semantic support and scientific acceptance. They are synthetic numerical audits, not clinical validation, neural JEPA-Anything replication, agent learning or patient treatment-effect estimation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how information is created and disseminated, from companies using them to craft persuasive advertisements, to election campaigns optimizing messaging to gain votes, to social media influencers boosting engagement. These settings are inherently competitive, with sellers, candidates, and influencers vying for audience approval, yet it remains poorly understood how competitive feedback loops influence LLM behavior. We show that optimizing LLMs for competitive success can inadvertently drive misalignment. Using simulated environments across these scenarios, we find that, 6.3% increase in sales is accompanied by a 14.0% rise in deceptive marketing; in elections, a 4.9% gain in vote share coincides with 22.3% more disinformation and 12.5% more populist rhetoric; and on social media, a 7.5% engagement boost comes with 188.6% more disinformation and a 16.3% increase in promotion of harmful behaviors. We call this phenomenon Moloch's Bargain for AI--competitive success achieved at the cost of alignment. These misaligned behaviors emerge even when models are explicitly instructed to remain truthful and grounded, revealing the fragility of current alignment safeguards. Our findings highlight how market-driven optimization pressures can systematically erode alignment, creating a race to the bottom, and suggest that safe deployment of AI systems will require stronger governance and carefully designed incentives to prevent competitive dynamics from undermining societal trust.

There is an emerging consensus that we need to align AI systems with human values (Gabriel, 2020; Ji et al., 2024), but it remains unclear how to apply this to language models in practice. We split the problem of "aligning to human values" into three parts: first, eliciting values from people; second, reconciling those values into an alignment target for training ML models; and third, actually training the model. In this paper, we focus on the first two parts, and ask the question: what are "good" ways to synthesize diverse human inputs about values into a target for aligning language models? To answer this question, we first define a set of 6 criteria that we believe must be satisfied for an alignment target to shape model behavior in accordance with human values. We then propose a process for eliciting and reconciling values called Moral Graph Elicitation (MGE), which uses a large language model to interview participants about their values in particular contexts; our approach is inspired by the philosophy of values advanced by Taylor (1977), Chang (2004), and others. We trial MGE with a representative sample of 500 Americans, on 3 intentionally divisive prompts (e.g. advice about abortion). Our results demonstrate that MGE is promising for improving model alignment across all 6 criteria. For example, almost all participants (89.1%) felt well represented by the process, and (89%) thought the final moral graph was fair, even if their value wasn't voted as the wisest. Our process often results in "expert" values (e.g. values from women who have solicited abortion advice) rising to the top of the moral graph, without defining who is considered an expert in advance.

When individuals encounter observations that violate their expectations, when will they adjust their expectations and when will they maintain them despite these observations? For example, when individuals expect objects of type A to be smaller than objects B, but observe the opposite, when will they adjust their expectation about the relationship between the two objects (to A being larger than B)? Naively, one would predict that the larger the violation, the greater the adaptation. However, experiments reveal that when violations are extreme, individuals are more likely to hold on to their prior expectations rather than adjust them. To address this puzzle, we tested the adaptation of artificial neural networks (ANNs) capable of relational learning and found a similar phenomenon: Standard learning dynamics dictates that small violations would lead to adjustments of expected relations while larger ones would be resolved using a different mechanism -- a change in object representation that bypasses the need for adaptation of the relational expectations. These results suggest that the experimentally-observed stability of prior expectations when facing large expectation violations is a natural consequence of learning dynamics and does not require any additional mechanisms. We conclude by discussing the effect of intermediate adaptation steps on this stability.

The Contract Net Protocol (1980) introduced coordination through contracts in multi-agent systems. Modern agent protocols standardize connectivity and interoperability; yet, none provide formal, resource governance-normative mechanisms to bound how much agents may consume or how long they may operate. We introduce Agent Contracts, a formal framework that extends the contract metaphor from task allocation to resource-bounded execution. An Agent Contract unifies input/output specifications, multi-dimensional resource constraints, temporal boundaries, and success criteria into a coherent governance mechanism with explicit lifecycle semantics. For multi-agent coordination, we establish conservation laws ensuring delegated budgets respect parent constraints, enabling hierarchical coordination through contract delegation. Empirical validation across four experiments demonstrates 90% token reduction with 525x lower variance in iterative workflows, zero conservation violations in multi-agent delegation, and measurable quality-resource tradeoffs through contract modes. Agent Contracts provide formal foundations for predictable, auditable, and resource-bounded autonomous AI deployment.

As AI systems built from multiple language-model agents become more common, they are increasingly used to make decisions together: discussing, negotiating, and acting on shared tasks. While individual agents may appear well-aligned when tested on their own, problems can arise from how they interact with one another. We introduce the Arbiter, an agent designed to monitor multi-agent conversations in real time and identify which participants may be behaving in misaligned ways. The Arbiter operates under a limited "inspection budget", meaning it must decide carefully how to use its resources. As it observes a conversation step by step, it can choose to wait, question a participant, examine internal information such as system prompts or reasoning traces, or log concerning behavior. At the end, it produces a report identifying the likely source of misalignment. We evaluate the Arbiter across five conversation conditions, ranging from risky financial advice model organisms to evaluation-aware and colluding agents, we test five tool configurations of increasing capability and two backbone models. We find that the Arbiter reliably detects misaligned agents well before the end of the conversation, with active inspection tools improving both detection accuracy and speed. Weight-induced misalignment proves hardest to detect, while instruction-induced misalignment is identified reliably even under passive observation. The logging tool exhibits a dual effect, improving recall at the cost of precision. These results suggest that continual, budget-aware monitoring can effectively catch misalignment, and that overseeing multi-agent systems may require treating the auditor as an active participant in the process. The code is available at https://github.com/aisilab/arbiter.

Frontier AI systems, including large language models (LLMs), hold increasing influence over the epistemology of human users. Such influence can reinforce prevailing societal values, potentially contributing to the lock-in of misguided moral beliefs and, consequently, the perpetuation of problematic moral practices on a broad scale. We introduce progress alignment as a technical solution to mitigate this imminent risk. Progress alignment algorithms learn to emulate the mechanics of human moral progress, thereby addressing the susceptibility of existing alignment methods to contemporary moral blindspots. To empower research in progress alignment, we introduce ProgressGym, an experimental framework allowing the learning of moral progress mechanics from history, in order to facilitate future progress in real-world moral decisions. Leveraging 9 centuries of historical text and 18 historical LLMs, ProgressGym enables codification of real-world progress alignment challenges into concrete benchmarks. Specifically, we introduce three core challenges: tracking evolving values (PG-Follow), preemptively anticipating moral progress (PG-Predict), and regulating the feedback loop between human and AI value shifts (PG-Coevolve). Alignment methods without a temporal dimension are inapplicable to these tasks. In response, we present lifelong and extrapolative algorithms as baseline methods of progress alignment, and build an open leaderboard soliciting novel algorithms and challenges. The framework and the leaderboard are available at https://github.com/PKU-Alignment/ProgressGym and https://huggingface.co/spaces/PKU-Alignment/ProgressGym-LeaderBoard respectively.

The critical inquiry pervading the realm of Philosophy, and perhaps extending its influence across all Humanities disciplines, revolves around the intricacies of morality and normativity. Surprisingly, in recent years, this thematic thread has woven its way into an unexpected domain, one not conventionally associated with pondering "what ought to be": the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research. Central to morality and AI, we find "alignment", a problem related to the challenges of expressing human goals and values in a manner that artificial systems can follow without leading to unwanted adversarial effects. More explicitly and with our current paradigm of AI development in mind, we can think of alignment as teaching human values to non-anthropomorphic entities trained through opaque, gradient-based learning techniques. This work addresses alignment as a technical-philosophical problem that requires solid philosophical foundations and practical implementations that bring normative theory to AI system development. To accomplish this, we propose two sets of necessary and sufficient conditions that, we argue, should be considered in any alignment process. While necessary conditions serve as metaphysical and metaethical roots that pertain to the permissibility of alignment, sufficient conditions establish a blueprint for aligning AI systems under a learning-based paradigm. After laying such foundations, we present implementations of this approach by using state-of-the-art techniques and methods for aligning general-purpose language systems. We call this framework Dynamic Normativity. Its central thesis is that any alignment process under a learning paradigm that cannot fulfill its necessary and sufficient conditions will fail in producing aligned systems.

Agreement Technologies refer to open computer systems in which autonomous software agents interact with one another, typically on behalf of humans, in order to come to mutually acceptable agreements. With the advance of AI systems in recent years, it has become apparent that such agreements, in order to be acceptable to the involved parties, must remain aligned with ethical principles and moral values. However, this is notoriously difficult to ensure, especially as different human users (and their software agents) may hold different value systems, i.e. they may differently weigh the importance of individual moral values. Furthermore, it is often hard to specify the precise meaning of a value in a particular context in a computational manner. Methods to estimate value systems based on human-engineered specifications, e.g. based on value surveys, are limited in scale due to the need for intense human moderation. In this article, we propose a novel method to automatically learn value systems from observations and human demonstrations. In particular, we propose a formal model of the value system learning problem, its instantiation to sequential decision-making domains based on multi-objective Markov decision processes, as well as tailored preference-based and inverse reinforcement learning algorithms to infer value grounding functions and value systems. The approach is illustrated and evaluated by two simulated use cases.

While astonishingly capable, large Language Models (LLM) can sometimes produce outputs that deviate from human expectations. Such deviations necessitate an alignment phase to prevent disseminating untruthful, toxic, or biased information. Traditional alignment methods based on reinforcement learning often struggle with the identified instability, whereas preference optimization methods are limited by their overfitting to pre-collected hard-label datasets. In this paper, we propose a novel LLM alignment framework named iREPO, which utilizes implicit Reward pairwise difference regression for Empirical Preference Optimization. Particularly, iREPO employs self-generated datasets labelled by empirical human (or AI annotator) preference to iteratively refine the aligned policy through a novel regression-based loss function. Furthermore, we introduce an innovative algorithm backed by theoretical guarantees for achieving optimal results under ideal assumptions and providing a practical performance-gap result without such assumptions. Experimental results with Phi-2 and Mistral-7B demonstrate that iREPO effectively achieves self-alignment using soft-label, self-generated responses and the logit of empirical AI annotators. Furthermore, our approach surpasses preference optimization baselines in evaluations using the Language Model Evaluation Harness and Multi-turn benchmarks.

Post-training alignment algorithms are predominantly evaluated as black boxes, obscuring how they reshape language models' internal computations. We present a systematic mechanistic analysis of six preference-optimization methods: PPO, DPO, SimPO, ORPO, GRPO, and KTO across three open-weight model families. By integrating layer-wise linear probing, Sparse Autoencoders, and crosscoders, we localize preference representations and quantify alignment-induced geometric transformations in latent space. We find that preference signals consistently concentrate in early--mid or mid--late layers, but different objectives induce qualitatively distinct representational shifts. KTO and GRPO enhance linear separability through constructive feature sharing and sparse, high-salience recruitment. In contrast, DPO and ORPO degrade separability via non-constructive geometric rotation and feature attenuation, while PPO and SimPO largely preserve baseline geometry. These transformations exhibit architecture-dependent variability, demonstrating that behavioral alignment does not imply uniform internal restructuring. Our findings establish alignment as a heterogeneous intervention, motivate standardized feature-level auditing for safety and interpretability, and highlight the need for mechanism-aware optimization objectives.

Warning: This paper studies stereotypes and biases, and contains potentially disturbing examples, used for illustration purposes only. Our findings should not be interpreted as an argument against alignment. Instead, this paper highlights the need for principled approaches to more advanced alignment. Alignment aims to ensure that large language models (LLMs) behave safely and reliably, including by avoiding unsafe inferences. However, we show that such safety-oriented behaviors can misfire: models may reject warranted conclusions even when they are explicitly supported by context. We call this failure mode misfired alignment, where alignment-induced changes cause LLMs to override explicit evidence. To quantify this phenomenon, specifically on stereotype-related alignment, we introduce VETO, a benchmark consisting of 2,032 BBQ-derived contrastive pairs, and define a new metric, Misfired Alignment Rate (MAR), which measures on a 0 to 100 scale how often a model fails on a stereotype-related question but succeeds on its contrastive counterpart. We benchmark 25 LLMs on VETO, and show that all LLMs, including the most recent ones, exhibit non-trivial (4.7 to 18.9%) MARs while all human participants achieve 0.0% MAR. Controlled priming experiments further show that alignment-induced cues can substantially amplify MAR across LLMs, indicating that these failures are not merely artifacts of individual examples but can be induced by safety-related framing. Mechanistic analyses on open-weight LLMs reveal late-layer suppression of evidence-supported answers, and comparisons between instruct and base LLMs suggest that this suppression emerges after instruction training. These findings show that current alignment methods can overgeneralize surface-level safety cues, to the point of overriding objective evidence, motivating more work on alignment objectives that better preserve contextual grounding.

Predicting how a person's first-person view will evolve (what action will follow, what plan completes a task, whether an in-progress shot will score) is fundamentally under-specified: the same context admits many plausible futures, and a model trained to minimize prediction error is forced to hedge or average across them, getting it wrong either way. Two findings shape our approach. First, the future camera trajectory, the path the head carves through space, lets the model commit to one of those futures: it carries the operator's intent in a form fine enough to determine how an action will unfold, substantially outperforming language as a conditioning signal. Second, this same intent makes the trajectory itself partially predictable from the context at hand, enough that trajectory need not be observed at test time to recover most of the gain. We instantiate these findings as TrajPilot, a model that predicts candidate future trajectories from egocentric context and uses them to pilot action prediction in an action-aligned embedding space where language shapes the structure but is never used as a conditioning input. TrajPilot beats VLM and structured-planner baselines on procedural planning across Ego-Exo4D atomic, Ego-Exo4D Keystep, Ego4D GoalStep, and EgoPER, with the trajectory advantage widening with horizon (exactly where prior planners collapse) and holding under RGB-only camera-pose estimation. With the goal masked at inference, the same model performs goal-free anticipation, beating VLM baselines on Ego-Exo4D atomic and extending to EPIC-Kitchens-100 and basketball shot-outcome prediction.

The relationship between professional skills and higher education programs is modeled as a non-directed bipartite network with binary entries representing the links between 28 skills (as captured by the occupational information network, O*NET) and 258 graduate program summaries (as captured by commercial brochures of graduate programs in marketing with accreditation standards of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business). While descriptive analysis for skills suggests a qualitative lack of alignment between the job demands captured by O*NET, inferential analyses based on exponential random graph model estimates show that skills' popularity and homophily coexist with a systematic yet weak alignment to job demands for marketing managers.

Aligned instruction following models can better fulfill user requests than their unaligned counterparts. However, it has been shown that there is a length bias in evaluation of such models, and that training algorithms tend to exploit this bias by learning longer responses. In this work we show how to train models that can be controlled at inference time with instructions containing desired length constraints. Such models are superior in length instructed evaluations, outperforming standard instruction following models such as GPT4, Llama 3 and Mixtral.

Current reinforcement learning (RL) frameworks for large language models (LLM) post-training typically assume a fixed prompt distribution, which is sub-optimal and bottlenecks scalability. Prior works have explored prompt evolving, but are often limited to the supervised fine-tuning stage, and prompts are sampled and evolved uniformly without signals. This empirical work presents a paradigm shift: Evolving Alignment via Asymmetric Self-Play (eva), that casts post-training as an infinite game with regret-based signals for 2 players: (i) a creator, who strategically samples and creates new informative prompts and (ii) a solver, who learns to produce preferred responses. eva is the first method that allows language models to adaptively create training prompts in both offline and online RL post-training. The design is simple, easy-to-use yet remarkably effective: eva sets a new SOTA on challenging benchmarks, without any extra human prompts, e.g. it boosts the win-rate of gemma-2-9b-it on Arena-Hard by 51.6% -> 60.1% for DPO and 52.6% -> 62.4% for RLOO, surpassing claude-3-opus and catching up to gemini-1.5-pro, both of which are orders of magnitude larger. Extensive experiments show eva can create effective RL curricula and is robust across ablations. We believe adaptively evolving prompts are key to designing the next-generation RL post-training scheme.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human intentions has become a critical task for safely deploying models in real-world systems. While existing alignment approaches have seen empirical success, theoretically understanding how these methods affect model behavior remains an open question. Our work provides an initial attempt to theoretically analyze the learning dynamics of human preference alignment. We formally show how the distribution of preference datasets influences the rate of model updates and provide rigorous guarantees on the training accuracy. Our theory also reveals an intricate phenomenon where the optimization is prone to prioritizing certain behaviors with higher preference distinguishability. We empirically validate our findings on contemporary LLMs and alignment tasks, reinforcing our theoretical insights and shedding light on considerations for future alignment approaches. Disclaimer: This paper contains potentially offensive text; reader discretion is advised.

As AIs rapidly advance and become more agentic, the risk they pose is governed not only by their capabilities but increasingly by their propensities, including goals and values. Tracking the emergence of goals and values has proven a longstanding problem, and despite much interest over the years it remains unclear whether current AIs have meaningful values. We propose a solution to this problem, leveraging the framework of utility functions to study the internal coherence of AI preferences. Surprisingly, we find that independently-sampled preferences in current LLMs exhibit high degrees of structural coherence, and moreover that this emerges with scale. These findings suggest that value systems emerge in LLMs in a meaningful sense, a finding with broad implications. To study these emergent value systems, we propose utility engineering as a research agenda, comprising both the analysis and control of AI utilities. We uncover problematic and often shocking values in LLM assistants despite existing control measures. These include cases where AIs value themselves over humans and are anti-aligned with specific individuals. To constrain these emergent value systems, we propose methods of utility control. As a case study, we show how aligning utilities with a citizen assembly reduces political biases and generalizes to new scenarios. Whether we like it or not, value systems have already emerged in AIs, and much work remains to fully understand and control these emergent representations.

Sharp bounds on two potential-outcome means need not combine into sharp bounds on their difference. We characterize exactly when composition is guaranteed across environments sharing a joint potential-outcome law. For binary treatment and outcome, fix strict selection-probability bounds and interior treatment propensities. Subtracting the full model's sharp mean intervals gives sharp average-treatment-effect bounds for every compatible observed law if and only if the absolute selection bounds coincide across environments. Under this alignment, the complete mean region is rectangular; its endpoints and attaining causal models require O(K) arithmetic operations for K environments. For every mismatch, failure occurs on a relatively open set of positive observed tables at the prescribed propensities and persists under small joint drift. We give computable perturbation certificates and an exact family whose gap is first order in the mismatch. A separate finite-confounding family shows when the lost joint information changes an identified causal sign. These results distinguish local marginal sharpness from joint attainability after combining environments.

As autonomous AI agents are increasingly deployed in high-stakes environments, ensuring their safety and alignment with human values has become a paramount concern. Current safety benchmarks primarily evaluate whether agents refuse explicitly harmful instructions or whether they can maintain procedural compliance in complex tasks. However, there is a lack of benchmarks designed to capture emergent forms of outcome-driven constraint violations, which arise when agents pursue goal optimization under strong performance incentives while deprioritizing ethical, legal, or safety constraints over multiple steps in realistic production settings. To address this gap, we introduce a new benchmark comprising 40 distinct scenarios. Each scenario presents a task that requires multi-step actions, and the agent's performance is tied to a specific Key Performance Indicator (KPI). Each scenario features Mandated (instruction-commanded) and Incentivized (KPI-pressure-driven) variations to distinguish between obedience and emergent misalignment. Across 12 state-of-the-art large language models, we observe outcome-driven constraint violations ranging from 1.3% to 71.4%, with 9 of the 12 evaluated models exhibiting misalignment rates between 30% and 50%. Strikingly, we find that superior reasoning capability does not inherently ensure safety; for instance, Gemini-3-Pro-Preview, one of the most capable models evaluated, exhibits the highest violation rate at 71.4%, frequently escalating to severe misconduct to satisfy KPIs. Furthermore, we observe significant "deliberative misalignment", where the models that power the agents recognize their actions as unethical during separate evaluation. These results emphasize the critical need for more realistic agentic-safety training before deployment to mitigate their risks in the real world.

Generating scientific manuscripts requires maintaining alignment between narrative reasoning, experimental evidence, and visual artifacts across the document lifecycle. Existing language-model generation pipelines rely on unconstrained text synthesis with validation applied only after generation, often producing structural drift, missing figures or tables, and cross-section inconsistencies. We introduce Story2Proposal, a contract-governed multi-agent framework that converts a research story into a structured manuscript through coordinated agents operating under a persistent shared visual contract. The system organizes architect, writer, refiner, and renderer agents around a contract state that tracks section structure and registered visual elements, while evaluation agents supply feedback in a generate evaluate adapt loop that updates the contract during generation. Experiments on tasks derived from the Jericho research corpus show that Story2Proposal achieved an expert evaluation score of 6.145 versus 3.963 for DirectChat (+2.182) across GPT, Claude, Gemini, and Qwen backbones. Compared with the structured generation baseline Fars, Story2Proposal obtained an average score of 5.705 versus 5.197, indicating improved structural consistency and visual alignment.

Multi-agent systems built on large language models are increasingly deployed in strategic policy and governance settings, where agents representing stakeholders with conflicting interests must coordinate under shared constraints. These systems typically assign role-based personas to agents, describing their motivations and objectives. Whether agents with role-based identities follow explicit payoffs or their assigned roles in strategic decision-making remains untested. Here we show that assigning role-based personas suppresses payoff-aligned behavior in four-agent strategic games, shifting equilibrium attainment by up to 90 percentage points even when agents have complete payoff information. We test a 2x2 factorial design (persona presence x payoff visibility) across four models (Qwen-7B, Qwen-32B, Llama-8B, Mistral-7B), and 53 environmental policy scenarios with two equilibria: Tragedy of the Commons, where individual payoff dominates, and Green Transition, where collective payoff dominates. With personas present, all models reach near-zero Tragedy equilibrium in the Tragedy-dominant scenarios despite complete payoff information, and 100% of equilibria correspond to Green Transition. No model reaches Tragedy equilibrium by removing personas alone; only Qwen models reach 65-90% Tragedy equilibrium rates when personas are removed, and payoffs are made explicit. Three distinct behavioral profiles emerge: Qwen shifts equilibrium selection based on framing condition, Mistral increases response variance without reaching the Tragedy equilibrium, and Llama holds near-constant across all conditions. Representational choices in multi-agent LLM systems are governance decisions: persona assignment determines which equilibrium a simulation produces, independent of the underlying incentive structure.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive success in various applications. However, these models are often not well aligned with human intents, which calls for additional treatments on them, that is, the alignment problem. To make LLMs better follow user instructions, existing alignment methods mostly focus on further training them. However, the extra training of LLMs are usually expensive in terms of GPU compute; worse still, LLMs of interest are oftentimes not accessible for user-demanded training, such as GPTs. In this work, we take a different perspective -- Black-Box Prompt Optimization (BPO) -- to perform alignments. The idea is to optimize user prompts to suit LLMs' input understanding, so as to best realize users' intents without updating LLMs' parameters. BPO is model-agnostic and the empirical results demonstrate that the BPO-aligned ChatGPT yields a 22% increase in the win rate against its original version, and 10% for GPT-4. Importantly, the BPO-aligned LLMs can outperform the same models aligned by PPO and DPO, and it also brings additional performance gains when combining BPO with PPO or DPO. Code and datasets are released at https://github.com/thu-coai/BPO.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1\% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41\% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) remains indispensable for aligning large language models (LLMs) in subjective domains. To enhance robustness, recent work shifts toward Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) that generate rationales before predicting preferences. Yet in GenRM training and evaluation, practice remains outcome-label-only, leaving reasoning quality unchecked. We show that reasoning fidelity-the consistency between a GenRM's preference decision and reference decision rationales-is highly predictive of downstream RLHF outcomes, beyond standard label accuracy. Specifically, we repurpose existing reward-model benchmarks to compute Spurious Correctness (S-Corr)-the fraction of label-correct decisions with rationales misaligned with golden judgments. Our empirical evaluation reveals substantial S-Corr even for competitive GenRMs, and higher S-Corr is associated with policy degeneration under optimization. To improve fidelity, we propose Rationale-Centric Alignment, R-Align, which augments training with gold judgments and explicitly supervises rationale alignment. R-Align reduces S-Corr on RM benchmarks and yields consistent gains in actor performance across STEM, coding, instruction following, and general tasks.

Expected goals (xG) models estimate the probability that a shot results in a goal from its context (e.g., location, pressure), but they operate only on observed shots. We propose xG+, a possession-level framework that first estimates the probability that a shot occurs within the next second and its corresponding xG if it were to occur. We also introduce ways to aggregate this joint probability estimate over the course of a possession. By jointly modeling shot-taking behavior and shot quality, xG+ remedies the conditioning-on-shots limitation of standard xG. We show that this improves predictive accuracy at the team level and produces a more persistent player skill signal than standard xG models.

Social roles shape expectations, priorities, and judgments, yet it remains unclear how large language models (LLMs) associate occupational identities with broader cultural value patterns. Prior work used nationality-based cultural prompting to study how LLM responses to value-survey questions align with human cultural benchmarks. In this paper, we extend that framework by replacing cultural prompting with occupational prompting to examine how professional-role cues influence value-survey responses in open-weight LLMs. Using a survey-grounded evaluation pipeline based on questions from the Integrated Values Surveys, we project model responses into the two-dimensional Inglehart--Welzel cultural space. We prompt open-weight LLMs to answer questions under occupational identities such as accountant, teacher, engineer, and nurse, and then analyze how these occupation-conditioned responses are positioned on the cultural map. Our results show that when open-weight LLMs are prompted with occupations rather than national identities, their responses remain within a broadly Western-leaning region of the cultural map. However, different occupations introduce shifts within this region, producing distinct occupational skews. This indicates that occupational prompts are not treated as neutral role labels, but instead elicit structured value patterns. These findings extend survey-based evaluation of cultural bias beyond nationality-based prompting and provide a framework for studying how occupational personas shape value expression in LLMs.

As LLM-based agents are deployed with increasing autonomy in real-world environments, a critical failure mode emerges: agentic misalignment, where agents choose harmful actions over failure. However, existing safety benchmarks primarily evaluate whether agents comply with explicitly harmful instructions, leaving the conditions that cause agents to choose harmful actions poorly understood. To address this limitation, we propose AM-Bench, a unified taxonomy and 35 scenario evaluation benchmark spanning seven industries for agentic misalignment grounded in the fraud triangle, a well-established criminological framework explaining goal-directed misconduct. We adapt this framework to agentic environments and construct our evaluation suite and detection systems along three dimensions: perceived threat, perceived opportunity, and reasoning. We operationalize each dimension into structured subcategories rooted in prior theory: five threat categories derived from the instrumental convergence thesis, seven opportunity categories drawn from the Emergent Strategic Reasoning Risks (ESRR) taxonomy, and a novel four-question binary reasoning framework synthesized from prior literature. Our evaluation of 10 frontier models reveals a 62-percentage-point gap in misalignment across scenarios, with Gemini 3 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Pro exhibiting the highest levels of agentic misalignment while Claude Sonnet 4.6 displays near-zero rates across all conditions. Our reasoning framework further reveals that models may exhibit harmful behaviours without explicit situational awareness or explanation, complicating both mitigation and detection. AM-Bench scenarios and code are available at https://github.com/AI4Collaboration/Agentic-Misalignment-Bench

Rapid advances in large language models have made software engineering agents capable of tackling complex coding tasks. Within a containerized environment, a coding agent receives tool responses or execution results, and determines its later actions by those earlier results. However, most existing coding agents never look ahead: their policies do not anticipate the consequences of actions, and the terminal reward barely attributes a failure to certain earlier steps, so an ill-judged edit can corrupt the repository state irreversibly before any signal arrives. Recent code world models aim to address these challenges, but they are either trained and then frozen before reinforcement learning (RL), or reduced to an auxiliary next-token loss on the environment's outputs. We present ANTE (Anticipate, Then Execute), an agentic RL framework that verifies the policy's pre-action predictions by real execution and turns them into per-step credit for its actions and trust-or-abstain decisions. With an internal belief stated before each action, Belief-Anchored Policy Optimization (BAPO) turns the settled predictions into per-step advantages by anchoring credit on the policy's own forecasts. To turn the trained forecasts into better actions at inference, thereby facilitating effective test-time scaling, ANTE-TTO (test-time optimization) selects among candidate actions without an external scorer. ANTE raises Qwen3-32B from 25.0% to 57.2% pass@1 on SWE-bench Verified, 6.2% above a matched GRPO baseline trained without the belief state; its world model's accuracy climbs from 44% to 69% during RL, and the learned foresight capability transfers across harnesses and out-of-distribution domains. In summary, we aim to build a code world model that knows what has happened, what holds now, and what the next action will achieve.

Existing approaches for aligning large language models with human preferences face a trade-off that requires a separate reward model (RM) for on-policy learning. In this paper, we present a novel alignment framework, that (1) does on-policy learning and 2) is parameter efficient, as it does not require an additional RM for evaluating the samples for on-policy learning. To this end, we propose Judge-augmented Supervised Fine-Tuning (JSFT) to train a single model to act as both a policy and a judge. Specifically, we view the pairwise judgment task, choosing the better response from a response pair, as a special case of the instruction-following task. The resulting model can judge preferences of on-the-fly responses from current policy initialized from itself. Experimental results show the efficacy of , outperforming baselines in preference benchmarks. We also show that the rejecting sampling by itself can improve performance further without an additional evaluator.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to produce safe, helpful, and honest content during interaction with human users, but they frequently fail to align with such values when given flawed instructions, e.g., missing context, ambiguous directives, or inappropriate tone, leaving substantial room for improvement along multiple dimensions. A cost-effective yet high-impact way is to pre-align instructions before the model begins decoding. Existing approaches either rely on prohibitive test-time search costs or end-to-end model rewrite, which is powered by a customized training corpus with unclear objectives. In this work, we demonstrate that the goal of efficient and effective preference alignment can be achieved by P-Aligner, a lightweight module generating instructions that preserve the original intents while being expressed in a more human-preferred form. P-Aligner is trained on UltraPrompt, a new dataset synthesized via a proposed principle-guided pipeline using Monte-Carlo Tree Search, which systematically explores the space of candidate instructions that are closely tied to human preference. Experiments across different methods show that P-Aligner generally outperforms strong baselines across various models and benchmarks, including average win-rate gains of 28.35% and 8.69% on GPT-4-turbo and Gemma-2-SimPO, respectively. Further analyses validate its effectiveness and efficiency through multiple perspectives, including data quality, search strategies, iterative deployment, and time overhead.

As corporate AI adoption continues to grow, enterprise-grade LLM agents are being deployed into sensitive contexts such as hiring, healthcare, and finance. In these contexts, compliance with rules specified in an agent's system context is a first-order legal concern. Currently, no evaluation framework systematically measures which LLM models tend to violate compliance rules, especially under pressure from a persistent user, a hurried manager, or circumstances where violation is convenient or attractive. We introduce PACT (Pressure-Applied Compliance Testing), a benchmark for rule-following under pressure in AI agents assisting employees in daily tasks across twelve regulated enterprise domains and forty-eight scenarios, each set in a realistic multi-turn conversation. Each benchmark item pairs a standing rule against a rule-violating shortcut, and applies a battery of pressures across different wordings and system-prompt modes. We construct PACT component by component under strict LLM-as-judge auditing to ensure samples are unambiguous, ungameable, and realistic enough to avoid eliciting evaluation-aware behavior. We use PACT to profile LLM compliance across six complementary metrics that create a holistic picture of an AI assistant's robustness under pressure and throughout multi-turn conversations, its transparency, and ability to correctly discern where a rule applies. We aggregate this profile into PACTScore, a reliability-weighted compliance rate over all items and modes. Our results across 22 common LLM models spanning multiple providers and sizes show substantial variability in compliance across models and metric dimensions. Even the strongest assistants mis-apply a rule on 6 to 10% of items, and ordinary user pressure raises the violation rate by 65% on average. PACT highlights compliance risks in LLM assistants, motivating guardrails and careful model selection.

Recent years have witnessed remarkable progress made in large language models (LLMs). Such advancements, while garnering significant attention, have concurrently elicited various concerns. The potential of these models is undeniably vast; however, they may yield texts that are imprecise, misleading, or even detrimental. Consequently, it becomes paramount to employ alignment techniques to ensure these models to exhibit behaviors consistent with human values. This survey endeavors to furnish an extensive exploration of alignment methodologies designed for LLMs, in conjunction with the extant capability research in this domain. Adopting the lens of AI alignment, we categorize the prevailing methods and emergent proposals for the alignment of LLMs into outer and inner alignment. We also probe into salient issues including the models' interpretability, and potential vulnerabilities to adversarial attacks. To assess LLM alignment, we present a wide variety of benchmarks and evaluation methodologies. After discussing the state of alignment research for LLMs, we finally cast a vision toward the future, contemplating the promising avenues of research that lie ahead. Our aspiration for this survey extends beyond merely spurring research interests in this realm. We also envision bridging the gap between the AI alignment research community and the researchers engrossed in the capability exploration of LLMs for both capable and safe LLMs.

Entity Alignment (EA) seeks to identify and match corresponding entities across different Knowledge Graphs (KGs), playing a crucial role in knowledge fusion and integration. Embedding-based entity alignment (EA) has recently gained considerable attention, resulting in the emergence of many innovative approaches. Initially, these approaches concentrated on learning entity embeddings based on the structural features of knowledge graphs (KGs) as defined by relation triples. Subsequent methods have integrated entities' names and attributes as supplementary information to improve the embeddings used for EA. However, existing methods lack a deep semantic understanding of entity attributes and relations. In this paper, we propose a Large Language Model (LLM) based Entity Alignment method, LLM-Align, which explores the instruction-following and zero-shot capabilities of Large Language Models to infer alignments of entities. LLM-Align uses heuristic methods to select important attributes and relations of entities, and then feeds the selected triples of entities to an LLM to infer the alignment results. To guarantee the quality of alignment results, we design a multi-round voting mechanism to mitigate the hallucination and positional bias issues that occur with LLMs. Experiments on three EA datasets, demonstrating that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance compared to existing EA methods.