analiza aiqbench
This paper treats cultural value alignment as a data-definition problem: before tuning a model, researchers need to decide whose values count, in which situations, and how those values should be measured. Re3Culture's findings that LLM simulations over-represent some subgroups and that preference data conflates values with other response qualities suggest that alignment benchmarks built on convenience samples or raw preferences may encode the wrong target. For AI readers, the practical takeaway is that the grounding and elicitation method can change the alignment outcome as much as the training method does.
Whose Values, Which Contexts, and What Signals? Grounding Cultural Value Alignment with Re3Culture
arXiv:2610.41793v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cultural value alignment requires not only model optimization but also a well-specified target grounded in real-human evidence. Yet how such targets should be grounded in human data remains largely unexplored, raising three fundamental questions: (1) whose values should be represented? (2) where should cultural values be observed? and (3) what signals reveal underlying values? We investigate these questions through Re3Culture, a large-scale dataset linking (i) Representative communities: 700+ human participants across four cultures recruited through cultural-affiliation screening and demographic-aware sampling; (ii) Realistic scenario: culturally sensitive scenarios selected by community members, e.g., family and kinship; and (iii) Revealed value signals: 1,400+ value surveys, 20,000+ topic-grounded behavioral principles and explicit value priorities with responses for 6,000+ situated questions. Our analysis shows why these choices matter for defining the target, with three implications. First, estimating cultural values requires both community affiliation and broad internal coverage. Substituting other cultures or restricting subgroup coverage shifts value estimates. LLM simulations also disproportionately reflect particular subgroups. Second, values must be observed in concrete, community-guided situations. Abstract questionnaire profiles weakly recover situated priorities, and communities differ in which scenarios they identify as culturally value-revealing. Third, value priorities should be elicited explicitly, not learned from response preferences or bottom-line answers alone. Preferences conflate value agreement with other response-level qualities, and similar answers can be derived from different value priorities. By addressing these requirements, Re3Culture provides the first human-grounded resource that explicitly informs target definition for cultural value alignment.
Title:Whose Values, Which Contexts, and What Signals? Grounding Cultural Value Alignment with Re3Culture
Abstract:Cultural value alignment requires not only model optimization but also a well-specified target grounded in real-human evidence. Yet how such targets should be grounded in human data remains largely unexplored, raising three fundamental questions: (1) whose values should be represented? (2) where should cultural values be observed? and (3) what signals reveal underlying values? We investigate these questions through Re3Culture, a large-scale dataset linking (i) Representative communities: 700+ human participants across four cultures recruited through cultural-affiliation screening and demographic-aware sampling; (ii) Realistic scenario: culturally sensitive scenarios selected by community members, e.g., family and kinship; and (iii) Revealed value signals: 1,400+ value surveys, 20,000+ topic-grounded behavioral principles and explicit value priorities with responses for 6,000+ situated questions. Our analysis shows why these choices matter for defining the target, with three implications. First, estimating cultural values requires both community affiliation and broad internal coverage. Substituting other cultures or restricting subgroup coverage shifts value estimates. LLM simulations also disproportionately reflect particular subgroups. Second, values must be observed in concrete, community-guided situations. Abstract questionnaire profiles weakly recover situated priorities, and communities differ in which scenarios they identify as culturally value-revealing. Third, value priorities should be elicited explicitly, not learned from response preferences or bottom-line answers alone. Preferences conflate value agreement with other response-level qualities, and similar answers can be derived from different value priorities. By addressing these requirements, Re3Culture provides the first human-grounded resource that explicitly informs target definition for cultural value alignment.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.41793 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.41793v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.41793 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 346 cuvinte