To Mask or to Mirror: Human-AI Alignment in Collective Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01924v1
• Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2025 11:41:30 GMT
• Title: To Mask or to Mirror: Human-AI Alignment in Collective Reasoning
• Authors: Crystal Qian, Aaron Parisi, Clémentine Bouleau, Vivian Tsai, Maël Lebreton, Lucas Dixon,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making.<n>We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment.<n>We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases.
• Score: 8.009150856358755
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making, it is critical to examine their alignment with human social reasoning. We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment, in contrast to prior work on the individual level. Using the Lost at Sea social psychology task, we conduct a large-scale online experiment (N=748), randomly assigning groups to leader elections with either visible demographic attributes (e.g. name, gender) or pseudonymous aliases. We then simulate matched LLM groups conditioned on the human data, benchmarking Gemini 2.5, GPT 4.1, Claude Haiku 3.5, and Gemma 3. LLM behaviors diverge: some mirror human biases; others mask these biases and attempt to compensate for them. We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases. Understanding how LLMs align with collective human behavior is critical to advancing socially-aligned AI, and demands dynamic benchmarks that capture the complexities of collective reasoning.

Related papers

• Can LLMs Truly Embody Human Personality? Analyzing AI and Human Behavior Alignment in Dispute Resolution [7.599497643290519]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in social settings.<n>It remains unclear whether these simulations reproduce the personality-behavior patterns observed in humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T07:20:24Z)
• Emulating Aggregate Human Choice Behavior and Biases with GPT Conversational Agents [0.48439699124726004]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to reproduce well-known biases.<n>We adapted three well-established decision scenarios into a conversational setting and conducted a human experiment.<n>We found notable differences between models in how they aligned human behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T12:33:05Z)
• Persona Prompting as a Lens on LLM Social Reasoning [5.001433675691563]
  For socially sensitive tasks like hate speech detection, the quality of explanations from Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial.<n>While Persona prompting (PP) is increasingly used as a way to steer model towards user-specific generation, its effect on model rationales remains underexplored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T16:41:17Z)
• HumanLLM: Towards Personalized Understanding and Simulation of Human Nature [72.55730315685837]
  HumanLLM is a foundation model designed for personalized understanding and simulation of individuals.<n>We first construct the Cognitive Genome, a large-scale corpus curated from real-world user data on platforms like Reddit, Twitter, Blogger, and Amazon.<n>We then formulate diverse learning tasks and perform supervised fine-tuning to empower the model to predict a wide range of individualized human behaviors, thoughts, and experiences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:27:27Z)
• Us-vs-Them bias in Large Language Models [0.569978892646475]
  We find consistent ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations across foundational large language models.<n>For personas examined, conservative personas exhibit greater outgroup hostility, whereas liberal personas display stronger ingroup solidarity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T07:11:22Z)
• Social Simulations with Large Language Model Risk Utopian Illusion [61.358959720048354]
  We introduce a systematic framework for analyzing large language models' behavior in social simulation.<n>Our approach simulates multi-agent interactions through chatroom-style conversations and analyzes them across five linguistic dimensions.<n>Our findings reveal that LLMs do not faithfully reproduce genuine human behavior but instead reflect overly idealized versions of it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T06:08:41Z)
• Many LLMs Are More Utilitarian Than One [15.517396785549158]
  Moral judgment is integral to large language model (LLM) alignment and social reasoning.<n>We study whether a similar dynamic emerges in multi-agent LLM systems.<n>We discuss the implications for AI alignment, multi-agent design, and artificial moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T14:46:16Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• SocioVerse: A World Model for Social Simulation Powered by LLM Agents and A Pool of 10 Million Real-World Users [70.02370111025617]
  We introduce SocioVerse, an agent-driven world model for social simulation.<n>Our framework features four powerful alignment components and a user pool of 10 million real individuals.<n>Results demonstrate that SocioVerse can reflect large-scale population dynamics while ensuring diversity, credibility, and representativeness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T12:12:52Z)
• Measurement of LLM's Philosophies of Human Nature [113.47929131143766]
  We design the standardized psychological scale specifically targeting large language models (LLM)<n>We show that current LLMs exhibit a systemic lack of trust in humans.<n>We propose a mental loop learning framework, which enables LLM to continuously optimize its value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T06:22:19Z)
• FairMindSim: Alignment of Behavior, Emotion, and Belief in Humans and LLM Agents Amid Ethical Dilemmas [23.26678104324838]
  We introduced FairMindSim, which simulates the moral dilemma through a series of unfair scenarios. We used LLM agents to simulate human behavior, ensuring alignment across various stages. Our findings indicate that, behaviorally, GPT-4o exhibits a stronger sense of social justice, while humans display a richer range of emotions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T11:39:05Z)
• Emergent social conventions and collective bias in LLM populations [0.0]
  Social conventions are the backbone of social coordination, shaping how individuals form a group.<n>We present experimental results that demonstrate the spontaneous emergence of universally adopted social conventions in decentralized populations of large language model (LLM) agents.<n>We then show how strong collective biases can emerge during this process, even when agents exhibit no bias individually.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T16:16:38Z)
• Are Large Language Models Aligned with People's Social Intuitions for Human-Robot Interactions? [7.308479353736709]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in robotics, especially for high-level action planning. In this work, we test whether LLMs reproduce people's intuitions and communication in human-robot interaction scenarios. We show that vision models fail to capture the essence of video stimuli and that LLMs tend to rate different communicative acts and behavior higher than people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T22:23:23Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)

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.