Thesis Proposal: Toward a Human-Centered and Perspective-Aware Framework for Reproducible ML Evaluation and AI Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30842v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:12:23 GMT
• Title: Thesis Proposal: Toward a Human-Centered and Perspective-Aware Framework for Reproducible ML Evaluation and AI Alignment
• Abstract summary: It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems.<n>Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment.<n>We present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.
• Score: 4.886462623872524
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

Related papers

• Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment [8.20706299979115]
  The popularization of large language models has seen a rise in harms spanning from toxic speech and hallucinations to AI agents executing unauthorized actions.<n>Within the field of AI safety, these harmful instances are often framed as the alignment problem, or of models being misaligned with human values.<n>How does the field of AI value alignment conceive of human values?<n>We annotated 94 value alignment research papers to discern their implicit theory of values in AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T23:57:02Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines [77.55118048492021]
  We argue that current AI evaluation paradigms are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities.<n>We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically-invalid tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T20:21:36Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs [16.711615737109977]
  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)
• Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment [109.57781720848669]
  We argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI.<n>We introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• 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)
• Who's Thinking? A Push for Human-Centered Evaluation of LLMs using the XAI Playbook [30.985555463848264]
  We draw parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving research boom around large language models. We argue that humans' tendencies should rest front and center when evaluating deployed large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-10T22:15:49Z)
• Can Machines Imitate Humans? Integrative Turing-like tests for Language and Vision Demonstrate a Narrowing Gap [56.611702960809644]
  We benchmark AI's ability to imitate humans in three language tasks and three vision tasks.<n>Next, we conducted 72,191 Turing-like tests with 1,916 human judges and 10 AI judges.<n>Imitation ability showed minimal correlation with conventional AI performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-23T16:16:52Z)
• A Human-Centric Assessment Framework for AI [11.065260433086024]
  There is no agreed standard on how explainable AI systems should be assessed. Inspired by the Turing test, we introduce a human-centric assessment framework. This setup can serve as framework for a wide range of human-centric AI system assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T12:59:13Z)

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.