LCAM: A Framework for Diagnosing Interactional Alignment Failures in Con-versational AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08131v1
• Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 12:15:09 GMT
• Title: LCAM: A Framework for Diagnosing Interactional Alignment Failures in Con-versational AI
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM) for diagnosing alignment failures in conversational AI.<n>LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context.<n>We show how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries.
• Score: 1.0742675209112622
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Conversational AI is increasingly used for advice, interpretation, reassurance, and decision support in contexts where users may be vulnerable, uncertain, or dependent on the system's apparent competence. Existing alignment work often focuses on model objectives, preference optimization, or output correctness. Yet, many harms arise through interaction: how systems frame authority, express uncertainty, simulate empathy, support reasoning, and make boundaries legible. This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM), a conceptual and normative framework for diagnosing interac-tional alignment failures in conversational AI. LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context. It distinguishes five layers of fit: perceptual, semantic, affective, cognitive, and ethical, and two diagnostic polarities of misalignment: underfit and overreach. We apply LCAM to a published LLM counseling example, showing how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries. By translating conversational failures into audit and governance questions concerning over-reliance, false intimacy, autonomy erosion, boundary confusion, and inappropriate trust, LCAM offers a theoretical and normative lens for evaluating conversational AI beyond accuracy, helpfulness, or trust.

Related papers

• Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models [49.45276299939287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly handle complex subjective tasks.<n>LLMs fluctuate unpredictably under minor wording changes.<n> resolving this duality is critical for reliable AI alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T03:35:04Z)
• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• Contextual Multi-Objective Optimization: Rethinking Objectives in Frontier AI Systems [20.864964136537772]
  We argue that many AI failures are not merely failures of scale or capability, but failures of objective selection.<n>We formulate this problem as emphcontextual multi-objective optimization.<n>Our framework models AI behavior as a context-dependent choice rule over candidate actions, objective estimates, active constraints, stakeholders, uncertainty, and conflict-resolution procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T15:55:19Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following [51.2195840589474]
  We introduce Build What I Mean, an interactive benchmark for contextual meaning construction.<n>In BWIM, models must resolve ambiguity by either performing a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost.<n>We observe suboptimal strategies, such as partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T14:46:59Z)
• AI Knows What's Wrong But Cannot Fix It: Helicoid Dynamics in Frontier LLMs Under High-Stakes Decisions [51.56484100374058]
  Helicoid dynamics is the name given to a specific failure regime in that second domain.<n>System engages competently, drifts into error, accurately names what went wrong, then reproduces the same pattern at a higher level of sophistication.<n>This prospective case series documents that regime across seven leading systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T05:25:49Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• Self-evolving expertise in complex non-verifiable subject domains: dialogue as implicit meta-RL [0.0]
  So-called wicked problems', those involving complex multi-dimensional settings, non-verifiable outcomes, heterogeneous impacts and a lack of single objectively correct answers, have plagued humans throughout history.<n>The use of state-of-the-art artificial intelligence systems (notably Large Language Model-based agents) collaborating with humans on solving such problems is being actively explored.<n>This work address this gap with Dialectica, a framework where agents engage in structured dialogue on defined topics, augmented by memory, self-reflection, and policy-constrained context editing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T15:59:44Z)
• Diagnose, Localize, Align: A Full-Stack Framework for Reliable LLM Multi-Agent Systems under Instruction Conflicts [75.20929587906228]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-powered multi-agent systems (MAS) have rapidly advanced collaborative reasoning, tool use, and role-specialized coordination in complex tasks.<n>However, reliability-critical deployment remains hindered by a systemic failure mode: hierarchical compliance under instruction conflicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T08:43:34Z)
• The Epistemic Suite: A Post-Foundational Diagnostic Methodology for Assessing AI Knowledge Claims [0.7233897166339268]
  This paper introduces the Epistemic Suite, a diagnostic methodology for surfacing the conditions under which AI outputs are produced and received.<n>Rather than determining truth or falsity, the Suite operates through twenty diagnostic lenses to reveal patterns such as confidence laundering, narrative compression, displaced authority, and temporal drift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T00:29:38Z)
• Interpretability as Alignment: Making Internal Understanding a Design Principle [3.6704226968275253]
  Interpretability provides a route to internal transparency by revealing the computations that drive outputs.<n>We argue that interpretability especially mechanistic approaches should be treated as a design principle for alignment, not an auxiliary diagnostic tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T13:45:59Z)
• Tuning-Free Accountable Intervention for LLM Deployment -- A Metacognitive Approach [55.613461060997004]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed transformative advances across a spectrum of natural language processing tasks. We propose an innovative textitmetacognitive approach, dubbed textbfCLEAR, to equip LLMs with capabilities for self-aware error identification and correction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T19:18:53Z)

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.