Probing the Structure and Dynamics of LLM Value Expression through Value Conflicts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07296v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 10:11:27 GMT
• Title: Probing the Structure and Dynamics of LLM Value Expression through Value Conflicts
• Abstract summary: We argue that Large Language Models (LLMs) value expression is better understood as a structured yet dynamic phenomenon.<n>We introduce Conflict-driven Value Probing, a framework that places LLMs in value conflicts and implements four types of interventions that perturb these conflicts to probe LLM value expression.
• Score: 15.778515866233114
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Ethical evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) often characterizes model values as static and monolithic. In contrast, we argue that LLM value expression is better understood as a structured yet dynamic phenomenon. To investigate this, we introduce Conflict-driven Value Probing, a controlled framework that places LLMs in value conflicts and implements four types of interventions that perturb these conflicts to probe LLM value expression. Applying this framework to ten LLMs, we identify three recurring patterns. (1) Expression duality: models shift from broad idealistic orientations in abstract assessment toward more pragmatic priorities in concrete conflicts. (2) Functional steerability: models readily reconfigure their expressed value profiles toward task-defined value objectives. (3) Bounded plasticity: such reconfiguration is not without constraints, i.e. pressure induces a security- and goal-oriented priority shift while negative framing distinguishes protected values from those more amenable to redirection. Together, these findings characterize both the structure and dynamics of LLM value expression: context flexibly reconfigures expressed priorities, yet within behavioral boundaries. This behavioral account provides a foundation for understanding controllability, alignment, and safety in LLMs. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ZeroGen-Lab/CFProbe.

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)
• How Controllable Are Large Language Models? A Unified Evaluation across Behavioral Granularities [75.10343190811592]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially sensitive domains.<n>Our benchmark offers a principled and interpretable framework for safe and controllable behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T03:50:13Z)
• The Shadow Self: Intrinsic Value Misalignment in Large Language Model Agents [37.75212140218036]
  We formalize the Loss-of-Control risk and identify the previously underexamined Intrinsic Value Misalignment (Intrinsic VM)<n>We then introduce IMPRESS, a scenario-driven framework for systematically assessing this risk.<n>We evaluate Intrinsic VM on 21 state-of-the-art LLM agents and find that it is a common and broadly observed safety risk across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:09:50Z)
• MAESTRO: Meta-learning Adaptive Estimation of Scalarization Trade-offs for Reward Optimization [56.074760766965085]
  Group-Relative Policy Optimization has emerged as an efficient paradigm for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose MAESTRO, which treats reward scalarization as a dynamic latent policy, leveraging the model's terminal hidden states as a semantic bottleneck.<n>We formulate this as a contextual bandit problem within a bi-level optimization framework, where a lightweight Conductor network co-evolves with the policy by utilizing group-relative advantages as a meta-reward signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T05:02:48Z)
• Cracking IoT Security: Can LLMs Outsmart Static Analysis Tools? [1.8549313085249322]
  This work presents the first comprehensive evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a multi-category interaction threat taxonomy.<n>We benchmark Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 70B, GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-R1 across zero-, one-, and two-shot settings.<n>Our findings show that while LLMs exhibit promising semantic understanding, their accuracy degrades significantly for threats requiring cross-rule structural reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-02T04:17:36Z)
• MENTOR: A Metacognition-Driven Self-Evolution Framework for Uncovering and Mitigating Implicit Risks in LLMs on Domain Tasks [17.598413159363393]
  Current alignment efforts primarily target explicit risks such as bias, hate speech, and violence.<n>We propose MENTOR: A MEtacognition-driveN self-evoluTion framework for uncOvering and mitigating implicit risks in large language models.<n>We release a supporting dataset of 9,000 risk queries spanning education, finance, and management to enhance domain-specific risk identification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T13:51:51Z)
• Pluralistic Behavior Suite: Stress-Testing Multi-Turn Adherence to Custom Behavioral Policies [18.428149174461264]
  We present PBSUITE, a dynamic evaluation suite designed to assess large language models' capacity to adhere to pluralistic alignment specifications.<n>We find that leading open- and closed-source LLMs maintain robust adherence to behavioral policies in single-turn settings, but their compliance weakens substantially in multi-turn adversarial interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T06:43:01Z)
• Role-Aware Language Models for Secure and Contextualized Access Control in Organizations [4.122315998598296]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in enterprise settings.<n>We investigate whether LLMs can be fine-tuned to generate responses that reflect the access privileges associated with different organizational roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T11:41:04Z)
• Fundamental Safety-Capability Trade-offs in Fine-tuning Large Language Models [92.38300626647342]
  Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) on some task-specific datasets has been a primary use of LLMs.<n>This paper presents a theoretical framework for understanding the interplay between safety and capability in two primary safety-aware LLM fine-tuning strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T20:41:57Z)
• Value Compass Benchmarks: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs.<n> aligning their values with humans has become imperative for their responsible development.<n>There still lack evaluations of LLMs values that fulfill three desirable goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text. Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z)

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.