CALMA: A Process for Deriving Context-aligned Axes for Language Model Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.09060v2
• Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 17:48:41 GMT
• Title: CALMA: A Process for Deriving Context-aligned Axes for Language Model Alignment
• Authors: Prajna Soni, Deepika Raman, Dylan Hadfield-Menell,
• Abstract summary: We introduce CALMA, a grounded, participatory methodology for eliciting context-relevant axes for evaluation and alignment.<n>Our findings demonstrate the value of evaluation practices based on open-ended and use-case-driven processes.
• Score: 4.732046558763803
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Datasets play a central role in AI governance by enabling both evaluation (measuring capabilities) and alignment (enforcing values) along axes such as helpfulness, harmlessness, toxicity, quality, and more. However, most alignment and evaluation datasets depend on researcher-defined or developer-defined axes curated from non-representative samples. As a result, developers typically benchmark models against broad (often Western-centric) values that overlook the varied contexts of their real-world deployment. Consequently, models trained on such proxies can fail to meet the needs and expectations of diverse user communities within these deployment contexts. To bridge this gap, we introduce CALMA (Context-aligned Axes for Language Model Alignment), a grounded, participatory methodology for eliciting context-relevant axes for evaluation and alignment. In a pilot with two distinct communities, CALMA surfaced novel priorities that are absent from standard benchmarks. Our findings demonstrate the value of evaluation practices based on open-ended and use-case-driven processes. Our work advances the development of pluralistic, transparent, and context-sensitive alignment pipelines.

Related papers

• Datasets for Fairness in Language Models: An In-Depth Survey [8.198294998446867]
  This survey examines the most widely used fairness datasets in current language model research.<n>We introduce a unified evaluation framework that reveals consistent patterns of demographic disparities across datasets and scoring methods.<n>We highlight the often overlooked biases that can influence conclusions about model fairness and offer practical guidance for selecting, combining, and interpreting these datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-29T22:11:58Z)
• Adapting Vision-Language Models for Evaluating World Models [24.813041196394582]
  We present UNIVERSE, a method for adapting Vision-language Evaluator for Rollouts in Simulated Environments under data and compute constraints.<n>We conduct a large-scale study comparing full, partial, and parameter-efficient finetuning across task formats, context lengths, sampling strategies, and data compositions.<n>The resulting unified evaluator matches the performance of task-specific baselines using a single checkpoint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T09:53:28Z)
• SEOE: A Scalable and Reliable Semantic Evaluation Framework for Open Domain Event Detection [70.23196257213829]
  We propose a scalable and reliable Semantic-level Evaluation framework for Open domain Event detection.<n>Our proposed framework first constructs a scalable evaluation benchmark that currently includes 564 event types covering 7 major domains.<n>We then leverage large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluation agents to compute a semantic F1-score, incorporating fine-grained definitions of semantically similar labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T09:37:05Z)
• MixEval-X: Any-to-Any Evaluations from Real-World Data Mixtures [28.130008435669865]
  We introduce MixEval-X, the first any-to-any, real-world benchmark designed to optimize evaluations across diverse input and output modalities. We propose multi-modal benchmark mixture and adaptation-rectification pipelines to reconstruct real-world task distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T16:52:28Z)
• Detecting Multimodal Situations with Insufficient Context and Abstaining from Baseless Predictions [75.45274978665684]
  Vision-Language Understanding (VLU) benchmarks contain samples where answers rely on assumptions unsupported by the provided context.<n>We collect contextual data for each sample whenever available and train a context selection module to facilitate evidence-based model predictions.<n>We develop a general-purpose Context-AwaRe Abstention detector to identify samples lacking sufficient context and enhance model accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-18T02:21:32Z)
• Exploring Precision and Recall to assess the quality and diversity of LLMs [82.21278402856079]
  We introduce a novel evaluation framework for Large Language Models (LLMs) such as textscLlama-2 and textscMistral. This approach allows for a nuanced assessment of the quality and diversity of generated text without the need for aligned corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T13:53:26Z)
• Learning Evaluation Models from Large Language Models for Sequence Generation [61.8421748792555]
  We propose a three-stage evaluation model training method that utilizes large language models to generate labeled data for model-based metric development.<n> Experimental results on the SummEval benchmark demonstrate that CSEM can effectively train an evaluation model without human-labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-08T16:41:16Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)

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.