aiqbench analysis
This study investigates inference-time value alignment in multi-turn dialogues, revealing that assistant model biases often override user preferences when values conflict. The findings indicate that early alignment successes can fade or reverse over time, suggesting a need to evaluate steering methods across full conversations rather than single turns. This research is critical for understanding the dynamic interplay between user intent and model baseline behavior in complex interactions.
Model vs. User: Whose Values Prevail? Inference-Time Value Alignment in Multi-Turn Conversations
arXiv:2610.19817v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human values shape how we expect language models to behave. Dominant alignment approaches treat values as global objectives, although the appropriate value orientation is personal and contextual. Training-free alignment can steer models toward target values at inference time, yet has been largely evaluated in single-turn settings and with a single steering direction (e.g., toward safety). We evaluate four prompt- and activation-based steering methods in multi-turn conversations, where user and assistant models push toward the same or opposing, equally desirable values. We track alignment with a linear probe across three models and two value trade-offs. When assistant and user pull in opposite directions, the side matching the assistant's baseline bias often prevails, and effects that look successful early often fade or reverse after a few turns. Steering should therefore be evaluated over full conversations and in both directions of a value trade-off.
Title:Model vs. User: Whose Values Prevail? Inference-Time Value Alignment in Multi-Turn Conversations
Abstract:Human values shape how we expect language models to behave. Dominant alignment approaches treat values as global objectives, although the appropriate value orientation is personal and contextual. Training-free alignment can steer models toward target values at inference time, yet has been largely evaluated in single-turn settings and with a single steering direction (e.g., toward safety). We evaluate four prompt- and activation-based steering methods in multi-turn conversations, where user and assistant models push toward the same or opposing, equally desirable values. We track alignment with a linear probe across three models and two value trade-offs. When assistant and user pull in opposite directions, the side matching the assistant's baseline bias often prevails, and effects that look successful early often fade or reverse after a few turns. Steering should therefore be evaluated over full conversations and in both directions of a value trade-off.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.19817 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.19817v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.19817 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 248 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Oct 3, 2026

The user in the LLM might be a moral patient too (a strange implication of the PSM and simulators)
LessWrong · Oct 15, 2026
Value Leakage: An LLM’s Answers Are Silently Shaped by Its Own Values
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 31, 2026