Towards Characterizing Subjectivity of Individuals through Modeling Value Conflicts and Trade-offs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.12633v1
• Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 04:20:05 GMT
• Title: Towards Characterizing Subjectivity of Individuals through Modeling Value Conflicts and Trade-offs
• Authors: Younghun Lee, Dan Goldwasser,
• Abstract summary: We characterize subjectivity of individuals on social media and infer their moral judgments using Large Language Models.<n>We propose a framework, SOLAR, that observes value conflicts and trade-offs in the user-generated texts to better represent subjective ground of individuals.
• Score: 22.588557390720236
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) not only have solved complex reasoning problems but also exhibit remarkable performance in tasks that require subjective decision making. Existing studies suggest that LLM generations can be subjectively grounded to some extent, yet exploring whether LLMs can account for individual-level subjectivity has not been sufficiently studied. In this paper, we characterize subjectivity of individuals on social media and infer their moral judgments using LLMs. We propose a framework, SOLAR (Subjective Ground with Value Abstraction), that observes value conflicts and trade-offs in the user-generated texts to better represent subjective ground of individuals. Empirical results show that our framework improves overall inference results as well as performance on controversial situations. Additionally, we qualitatively show that SOLAR provides explanations about individuals' value preferences, which can further account for their judgments.

Related papers

• CLASH: Evaluating Language Models on Judging High-Stakes Dilemmas from Multiple Perspectives [3.7731230532888036]
  CLASH (Character perspective-based LLM Assessments in Situations with High-stakes) is a dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values. Even the strongest models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-Sonnet, achieve less than 50% accuracy in identifying situations where the decision should be ambivalent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T02:54:16Z)
• Distributive Fairness in Large Language Models: Evaluating Alignment with Human Values [13.798198972161657]
  A number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes.<n>This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) adhere to fundamental fairness concepts and investigate their alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-01T04:24:47Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Uncovering Factor Level Preferences to Improve Human-Model Alignment [58.50191593880829]
  We introduce PROFILE, a framework that uncovers and quantifies the influence of specific factors driving preferences. ProFILE's factor level analysis explains the 'why' behind human-model alignment and misalignment. We demonstrate how leveraging factor level insights, including addressing misaligned factors, can improve alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T15:02:34Z)
• Is Self-knowledge and Action Consistent or Not: Investigating Large Language Model's Personality [11.660251022962141]
  We investigate the validity of conventional personality questionnaires in capturing the human-like personality traits of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our objective is to assess the congruence between the personality traits LLMs claim to possess and their demonstrated tendencies in real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T16:32:08Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.