Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16589v1
• Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 03:35:04 GMT
• Title: Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 49.45276299939287
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly handle complex subjective tasks, aligning their intentions and behaviors with human values has become a critical scientific challenge. However, current efforts are confounded by a striking behavioral paradox: they fluctuate unpredictably under minor wording changes ("swing"), yet stubbornly ignore explicit instructions to correct ingrained biases ("rigidity"). Resolving this duality is critical for reliable AI alignment. To systematically understand and safely steer these latent subjective preferences, our study is structured around three fundamental questions. First, do LLMs possess an intrinsic value system? By projecting responses from 106 LLMs (150,000 queries per model) and 95,000 human survey profiles into a shared sociological space, we empirically confirm that they do. However, they do not mirror human diversity, instead crystallizing into a highly concentrated, idealized value core. Second, how can these values be quantified? We propose the Prior-Environment-Cognition (PEC) framework. This model mathematically defines value expression as the joint outcome of inherent dispositions like parameter weights (Prior), external contexts such as user prompts (Environment), and internal reasoning processes like Chain-of-Thought (Cognition). Finally, how can LLMs' values be aligned toward a desired target? Using PEC diagnostics, we establish an adaptive "Alignment Prescription". Rather than blindly applying resource-intensive training, this method identifies the minimum effective intervention needed for each dimension, ranging from zero-cost prompts to targeted parameter updates. Extensive empirical validation confirms that our approach successfully verifies the presence of LLM values, accurately quantifies their shifts, and achieves more efficient and precise steering than conventional blind training, all without degrading general capabilities.

Related papers

• Every Question Has Its Own Value: Reinforcement Learning with Explicit Human Values [53.72318444646282]
  We propose Reinforcement Learning with Explicit Human Values (RLEV)<n>RLEV aligns Large Language Model (LLM) optimization directly with quantifiable human value signals.<n>We show RLEV consistently outperforms correctness-only baselines across multiple RL algorithms and model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T04:15:22Z)
• Counterfactual Reasoning for Steerable Pluralistic Value Alignment of Large Language Models [43.01088871836861]
  COUPLE is a COUnterfactual reasoning framework for PLuralistic valuE alignment.<n>It features complex interdependency and prioritization among features, as well as the causal relationship between high-level value dimensions and behaviors.<n>Benefitting from explicit causal modeling, COUPLE also provides better interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T11:12:45Z)
• Evaluating AI Alignment in Eleven LLMs through Output-Based Analysis and Human Benchmarking [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in psychological research and practice, yet traditional benchmarks reveal little about the values they express in real interaction.<n>We introduce PAPERS, output-based evaluation of the values LLMs express.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T20:14:02Z)
• CLASH: Evaluating Language Models on Judging High-Stakes Dilemmas from Multiple Perspectives [3.7931130268412194]
  CLASH is a dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values.<n> CLASH enables the study of critical yet underexplored aspects of value-based decision-making processes.<n>Even strong proprietary models, such as GPT-5 and Claude-4-Sonnet, struggle with ambivalent decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T02:54:16Z)
• 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)
• Are the Values of LLMs Structurally Aligned with Humans? A Causal Perspective [33.19778298286475]
  We argue that a latent causal value graph underlies the value dimensions of large language models (LLMs) and that, despite alignment training, this structure remains significantly different from human value systems.<n>We leverage these causal value graphs to guide two lightweight value-steering methods: role-based prompting and sparse autoencoder (SAE) steering.<n>Experiments on Gemma-2B-IT and Llama3-8B-IT demonstrate the effectiveness and controllability of our methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T18:12:05Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• 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.