Understanding the Process of Human-AI Value Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13854v1
• Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 09:39:38 GMT
• Title: Understanding the Process of Human-AI Value Alignment
• Authors: Jack McKinlay, Marina De Vos, Janina A. Hoffmann, Andreas Theodorou,
• Abstract summary: Value alignment in computer science research is often used to refer to the process of aligning artificial intelligence with humans, but the way the phrase is used often lacks precision.<n>We conduct a systematic literature review to advance the understanding of value alignment in artificial intelligence.
• Score: 1.6799377888527687
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Value alignment in computer science research is often used to refer to the process of aligning artificial intelligence with humans, but the way the phrase is used often lacks precision. Objectives: In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review to advance the understanding of value alignment in artificial intelligence by characterising the topic in the context of its research literature. We use this to suggest a more precise definition of the term. Methods: We analyse 172 value alignment research articles that have been published in recent years and synthesise their content using thematic analyses. Results: Our analysis leads to six themes: value alignment drivers & approaches; challenges in value alignment; values in value alignment; cognitive processes in humans and AI; human-agent teaming; and designing and developing value-aligned systems. Conclusions: By analysing these themes in the context of the literature we define value alignment as an ongoing process between humans and autonomous agents that aims to express and implement abstract values in diverse contexts, while managing the cognitive limits of both humans and AI agents and also balancing the conflicting ethical and political demands generated by the values in different groups. Our analysis gives rise to a set of research challenges and opportunities in the field of value alignment for future work.

Related papers

• Rethinking How AI Embeds and Adapts to Human Values: Challenges and Opportunities [0.6113558800822273]
  We argue that AI systems should implement long-term reasoning and remain adaptable to evolving values.<n>Value alignment requires more theories to address the full spectrum of human values.<n>We identify the challenges associated with value alignment and indicate directions for advancing value alignment research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-23T18:19:05Z)
• ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs [14.621675648356236]
  We introduce Value, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review.<n>We apply Value to measure the value alignment of humans and large language models (LLMs) across four real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T02:13:03Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in 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. 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. 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)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Quantifying Misalignment Between Agents: Towards a Sociotechnical Understanding of Alignment [2.619545850602691]
  Recent sociotechnical approaches highlight the need to understand complex misalignment among multiple human and AI agents.<n>We adapt a computational social science model of human contention to the alignment problem.<n>Our model quantifies misalignment in large, diverse agent groups with potentially conflicting goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T16:31:22Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties [68.66719970507273]
  Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another. As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out potentially irreducible value conflicts. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:24:59Z)
• Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation for Large Language Models [91.96728871418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it crucial to align their values with those of humans. We propose a Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation (HVAE) system to assess the success of aligning LLMs with heterogeneous values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T02:34:20Z)
• Interactive Natural Language Processing [67.87925315773924]
  Interactive Natural Language Processing (iNLP) has emerged as a novel paradigm within the field of NLP. This paper offers a comprehensive survey of iNLP, starting by proposing a unified definition and framework of the concept.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:18:29Z)
• A computational framework of human values for ethical AI [3.5027291542274357]
  values provide a means to engineer ethical AI. No formal, computational definition of values has yet been proposed. We address this through a formal conceptual framework rooted in the social sciences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T11:35:41Z)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Human-Robot Collaboration and Machine Learning: A Systematic Review of Recent Research [69.48907856390834]
  Human-robot collaboration (HRC) is the approach that explores the interaction between a human and a robot. This paper proposes a thorough literature review of the use of machine learning techniques in the context of HRC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-14T15:14:33Z)
• Steps Towards Value-Aligned Systems [0.0]
  Algorithmic (including AI/ML) decision-making artifacts are an established and growing part of our decision-making ecosystem. Current literature is full of examples of how individual artifacts violate societal norms and expectations. This discussion argues for a more structured systems-level approach for assessing value-alignment in sociotechnical systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T22:47:30Z)

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.