Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

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.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Model vs. User: Whose Values Prevail? Inference-Time Value Alignment in Multi-Turn Conversations

arXiv2 min read

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