On the Alignment of Large Language Models with Global Human Opinion
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.01418v1
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2025 12:19:17 GMT
- Title: On the Alignment of Large Language Models with Global Human Opinion
- Authors: Yang Liu, Masahiro Kaneko, Chenhui Chu,
- Abstract summary: This study is the first comprehensive investigation of the topic of opinion alignment in large language models (LLMs) across global, language, and temporal dimensions.<n>We create an evaluation framework based on the World Values Survey (WVS) to systematically assess the alignment of LLMs with human opinions.<n>We find that LLMs appropriately or over-align the opinions with only a few countries while under-aligning the opinions with most countries.
- Score: 36.1655217879788
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Today's large language models (LLMs) are capable of supporting multilingual scenarios, allowing users to interact with LLMs in their native languages. When LLMs respond to subjective questions posed by users, they are expected to align with the views of specific demographic groups or historical periods, shaped by the language in which the user interacts with the model. Existing studies mainly focus on researching the opinions represented by LLMs among demographic groups in the United States or a few countries, lacking worldwide country samples and studies on human opinions in different historical periods, as well as lacking discussion on using language to steer LLMs. Moreover, they also overlook the potential influence of prompt language on the alignment of LLMs' opinions. In this study, our goal is to fill these gaps. To this end, we create an evaluation framework based on the World Values Survey (WVS) to systematically assess the alignment of LLMs with human opinions across different countries, languages, and historical periods around the world. We find that LLMs appropriately or over-align the opinions with only a few countries while under-aligning the opinions with most countries. Furthermore, changing the language of the prompt to match the language used in the questionnaire can effectively steer LLMs to align with the opinions of the corresponding country more effectively than existing steering methods. At the same time, LLMs are more aligned with the opinions of the contemporary population. To our knowledge, our study is the first comprehensive investigation of the topic of opinion alignment in LLMs across global, language, and temporal dimensions. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/nlply/global-opinion-alignment.
Related papers
- XToM: Exploring the Multilingual Theory of Mind for Large Language Models [57.9821865189077]
Existing evaluations of Theory of Mind in LLMs are largely limited to English.<n>We present XToM, a rigorously validated multilingual benchmark that evaluates ToM across five languages.<n>Our findings expose limitations in LLMs' ability to replicate human-like mentalizing across linguistic contexts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-06-03T05:23:25Z) - One world, one opinion? The superstar effect in LLM responses [0.4604003661048266]
Large language models (LLMs) are shaping the way information is shared and accessed online.<n>This study examines who the LLMs view as the most prominent figures across various fields using prompts in ten different languages.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-13T17:03:56Z) - LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods [21.601196380989542]
''LLMs-as-judges'' are evaluators based on natural language responses.<n>This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the ''LLMs-as-judges'' paradigm from five key perspectives.<n>We aim to provide insights on the development and application of ''LLMs-as-judges'' in both research and practice.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-12-07T08:07:24Z) - Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z) - Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP.<n>Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions.<n>We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z) - OMGEval: An Open Multilingual Generative Evaluation Benchmark for Large
Language Models [59.54423478596468]
We introduce OMGEval, the first Open-source Multilingual Generative test set that can assess the capability of LLMs in different languages.
For each language, OMGEval provides 804 open-ended questions, covering a wide range of important capabilities of LLMs.
Specifically, the current version of OMGEval includes 5 languages (i.e., Zh, Ru, Fr, Es, Ar)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-21T04:42:41Z) - Large Language Models: A Survey [66.39828929831017]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks.<n>LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z) - Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models [26.999751306332165]
Large language models (LLMs) may not equitably represent diverse global perspectives on societal issues.
We develop a quantitative framework to evaluate whose opinions model-generated responses are more similar to.
We release our dataset for others to use and build on.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-28T17:31:53Z)
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.