A Persona-Based Evaluation Framework for Pluralistic Alignment in Generative AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.31021v1
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 08:54:09 GMT
• Title: A Persona-Based Evaluation Framework for Pluralistic Alignment in Generative AI
• Abstract summary: We introduce a state-space constrained emulation framework for AI evaluation that replaces singular assessment functions with a structured manifold of synthetic cognitive profiles representing diverse human perspectives.<n>We show that modern generative architectures can instantiate and maintain these evaluative personas with high consistency.<n>This study provides a foundation for more adaptive, human-aligned, and context-sensitive approaches to AI evaluation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Current alignment paradigms for generative artificial intelligence rely predominantly on monolithic benchmarking frameworks that reduce the plurality of human judgment to aggregated statistical baselines, thereby obscuring cultural, demographic, and contextual variability in evaluation. We introduce a state-space constrained emulation framework for AI evaluation that replaces singular assessment functions with a structured manifold of synthetic cognitive profiles representing diverse human perspectives. We show that modern generative architectures can instantiate and maintain these evaluative personas with high consistency, enabling a form of pluralistic, perspective-dependent benchmarking that more closely reflects real-world consensus variability. However, we further analyze the stability of these simulated evaluators under sequential inference and stochastic prompt perturbations, revealing systematic degradation in persona coherence that manifests as state-space drift and semantic inconsistency. These findings suggest that static alignment constraints are insufficient for sustaining robust evaluative behavior over time. Instead, we argue for the necessity of embedding dynamic, viability-driven regulatory mechanisms within generative systems to preserve coherent cognitive emulation. By framing persona-based evaluation as a structured dynamical system over latent representation manifolds, this study provides a foundation for more adaptive, human-aligned, and context-sensitive approaches to AI evaluation.

Related papers

• To Compare, or Not to Compare: On Methodological Practices in Evaluating Social Bias [61.40435736418359]
  We introduce a unified framework that standardizes heterogeneous benchmarks to contrast isolated demographic assessments with forced-choice comparative settings.<n>We show that comparative settings act as aggressive catalysts for latent discrimination, a shift primarily driven by underspecified contexts.<n>Finally, we demonstrate that this comparative prejudice is a generalized phenomenon that scales positively with model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:53:50Z)
• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science [90.62695599188204]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as systems that act over time through tools, environments, users, and other agents.<n>The field has begun to build interactive benchmarks, but the resulting landscape is fragmented.<n>This position paper argues that interactive evaluation should be treated as a principled evaluation paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T04:03:18Z)
• Aligning LLM Uncertainty with Human Disagreement in Subjectivity Analysis [57.78407973423517]
  We advocate uncertainty-aware subjectivity analysis, where models are expected to make predictions while expressing uncertainty that reflects human disagreement.<n>To operationalize this perspective, we propose a two-phase Disagreement Perception and Uncertainty Alignment framework.<n> Experiments on three subjectivity analysis tasks show that DPUA preserves task performance while better aligning model uncertainty with human disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T11:52:58Z)
• Benchmarked Yet Not Measured -- Generative AI Should be Evaluated Against Real-World Utility [9.928824688627037]
  We argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories.<n>We propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T18:56:07Z)
• SocialOmni: Benchmarking Audio-Visual Social Interactivity in Omni Models [86.19617358080016]
  Social Omni is a benchmark that operationalizes the evaluation of conversational interactivity across three core dimensions.<n>Social Omni features 2,000 perception samples and a quality-controlled diagnostic set of 209 interaction-generation instances.<n>Our analysis reveals a pronounced decoupling between a model's perceptual accuracy and its ability to generate contextually appropriate interruptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T17:58:44Z)
• A Theoretical Framework for Adaptive Utility-Weighted Benchmarking [0.0]
  This paper introduces a theoretical framework that reconceptualizes benchmarking as a multilayer, adaptive network linking evaluation metrics, model components, and stakeholder groups through weighted interactions.<n>Using conjoint-derived utilities and a human-in-the-loop update rule, we formalize how human tradeoffs can be embedded into benchmark structure and how benchmarks can evolve dynamically while preserving stability and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T19:33:47Z)
• The Moral Consistency Pipeline: Continuous Ethical Evaluation for Large Language Models [5.636979853716324]
  This study presents the Moral Consistency Pipeline (MoCoP), a dataset-free, closed-loop framework for continuously evaluating and interpreting the moral stability of LLMs.<n>MoCoP combines three supporting layers: (i) lexical integrity analysis, (ii) semantic risk estimation, and (iii) reasoning-based judgment modeling within a self-sustaining architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T18:52:29Z)
• Establishing a Unified Evaluation Framework for Human Motion Generation: A Comparative Analysis of Metrics [6.708543240320757]
  This paper presents a detailed review of eight evaluation metrics for human motion generation. We propose standardized practices through a unified evaluation setup to facilitate consistent model comparisons. We introduce a novel metric that assesses diversity in temporal distortion by analyzing warping diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T12:10:57Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• 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)

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.