D2VBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models with Value Dilemmas in Daily Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19834v1
• Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 07:15:42 GMT
• Title: D2VBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models with Value Dilemmas in Daily Scenarios
• Abstract summary: We propose D2VBench, a value alignment benchmark grounded in 158 manually annotated fine-grained value concepts.<n>For evaluation on the benchmark, we present a hybrid evaluation paradigm that integrates multiple-choice questions with open-ended questions.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that D2VBench exhibits high reliability and robustness, effectively reflecting the LLMs' alignment across different value categories and dimensions.
• Score: 44.97202907424815
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the wide application of large language models (LLMs) in real-world scenarios, the value implication of their outputs is crucial. However, existing evaluation benchmarks suffer from insufficient coverage of value dilemmas in daily scenarios involving multiple value conflicts and simplistic evaluation formalisms that fail to assess LLMs' value alignment. To address these issues, we propose D2VBench, a value alignment benchmark comprising 10,000 instances of real daily dilemma scenarios constructed through a multi-stage collaboration between LLMs and humans, grounded in 158 manually annotated fine-grained value concepts. For evaluation on the benchmark, we present a hybrid evaluation paradigm that integrates multiple-choice questions with open-ended questions. We conduct comprehensive evaluations on eight mainstream LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that D2VBench exhibits high reliability and robustness, effectively reflecting the LLMs' alignment across different value categories and dimensions, and providing a more realistic and fine-grained tool for research on value alignment. The dataset is available at https://github.com/tjunlp-lab/D2VBench.

Related papers

• A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Empirical Study of LLMs for Conversation Summarization [17.601111891544885]
  We propose OmniCSEval, a unified benchmark comprising 1,800 diverse conversations across six real-world scenarios.<n>For fine-grained evaluation, we employ a bidirectional fact-checking framework that integrates key fact matching to assess completeness and conciseness.<n>We evaluate 28 LLMs across four distinct categories grouped by reasoning capability and model scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T18:57:01Z)
• VAL-Bench: Measuring Value Alignment in Language Models [10.745372809345412]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks where outputs shape human decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks mostly track refusals or predefined safety violations but do not reveal whether a model upholds a coherent value system.<n>We introduce the Value ALignment Benchmark (VAL-Bench), which evaluates whether models maintain a stable value stance across paired that frame opposing sides of public debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T23:55:48Z)
• MR$^2$-Bench: Going Beyond Matching to Reasoning in Multimodal Retrieval [86.35779264575154]
  Multimodal retrieval is becoming a crucial component of modern AI applications, yet its evaluation lags behind the demands of more realistic and challenging scenarios.<n>We introduce MR$2$-Bench, a reasoning-intensive benchmark for multimodal retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T15:09:14Z)
• SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models [4.875712300661656]
  We present SCORE ($mathbfS$ystematic $mathbfCO$nsistency and $mathbfR$obustness $mathbfE$valuation), a comprehensive framework for non-adversarial evaluation of Large Language Models.<n>The SCORE framework evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups to give a realistic estimate of their accuracy and consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:27:29Z)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• HELMET: How to Evaluate Long-Context Language Models Effectively and Thoroughly [34.205934899868346]
  We introduce HELMET, a comprehensive benchmark encompassing seven diverse, application-centric categories.<n>We find that synthetic tasks like NIAH do not reliably predict downstream performance.<n>While most LCLMs achieve perfect NIAH scores, open-source models significantly lag behind closed ones when tasks require full-context reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:20:11Z)
• LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models [71.8065384742686]
  LMMS-EVAL is a unified and standardized multimodal benchmark framework with over 50 tasks and more than 10 models.<n>LMMS-EVAL LITE is a pruned evaluation toolkit that emphasizes both coverage and efficiency.<n>Multimodal LIVEBENCH utilizes continuously updating news and online forums to assess models' generalization abilities in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T17:51:53Z)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)

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.