The global deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) underscores the urgent need to evaluate their cultural alignment. However, assessing genuine "cultural awareness" across modalities (text, vision, speech) and languages remains a significant challenge. To comprehensively investigate this domain, we propose MMAC, a systematic framework that encompasses a tri-modally aligned cultural benchmark creation pipeline and a five-dimensional evaluation protocol to assess cross-country awareness disparities, evaluate cross-lingual and cross-modal consistency, and verify cultural knowledge generalization and grounding validity. Given the prevailing Western cultural bias in current models, we focus on 8 Asian countries as our dataset foundation to more acutely reveal potential cultural deficiencies in LLMs. Our dataset, MMAC-bench, features 27,000 human-curated questions across 10 languages. Crucially, it is the first dataset aligned at the input level across text, image, and speech, enabling direct cross-modal transfer tests. Each question consists of multiple-choice options accompanied by open-ended generated explanations, where 79% require multi-step reasoning grounded in cultural context, moving beyond simple memorization. We probe the causes of modal divergence, offering insights into fostering culturally robust MLLMs.

Despite their global prevalence, many Large Language Models (LLMs) are aligned to a monolithic, often Western-centric set of values. This paper investigates the more challenging task of fine-grained value alignment: examining whether LLMs can emulate the distinct cultural values of demographic subgroups. Using Singapore as a case study and the World Values Survey (WVS), we examine the value landscape and show that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4.1 achieve only 57.4% accuracy in predicting subgroup modal preferences. We construct a dataset of over 20,000 samples to train and evaluate a range of models. We demonstrate that simple fine-tuning on structured numerical preferences yields substantial gains, improving accuracy on unseen, out-of-distribution subgroups by an average of 17.4%. These gains partially transfer to open-ended generation. However, we find significant pre-existing performance biases, where models better emulate young, male, Chinese, and Christian personas. Furthermore, while fine-tuning improves average performance, it widens the disparity between subgroups when measured by distance-aware metrics. Our work offers insights into the limits and fairness implications of subgroup-level cultural alignment.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a crucial technique for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, existing RLHF methods face key challenges, including poor sample efficiency, high computational overhead, and slow convergence. Recent studies highlight the importance of data selection in RL, but how to effectively select the most beneficial experiences for RL training remains an open problem. Existing data selection methods for RL rely on heuristic metrics, failing to establish an interpretable connection between data and optimization objectives. To address this problem, we propose InfOES (Influence-based Online Experience Selection), a novel data selection method for RLHF that dynamically estimates the influence of individual training samples on policy optimization. By incorporating data attribution into the policy gradient, InfOES can identify and filter out detrimental samples on the fly, ensuring effective convergence toward alignment objectives. Our approach is compatible with various RL algorithms (e.g., PPO, GRPO, REINFORCE++). Extensive experiments demonstrate that InfOES significantly enhances training effectiveness, achieving superior alignment performance with fewer optimization steps.

As large language models (LLMs) are gradually integrated into human daily life, assessing their underlying values becomes essential for understanding their risks and alignment with specific preferences. Despite growing efforts, current value evaluation methods face two key challenges. C1. Evaluation Validity: Static benchmarks fail to reflect intended values or yield informative results due to data contamination or a ceiling effect. C2. Result Interpretation: They typically reduce the pluralistic and often incommensurable values to one-dimensional scores, which hinders users from gaining meaningful insights and guidance. To address these challenges, we present Value Compass Benchmarks, the first dynamic, online and interactive platform specially devised for comprehensive value diagnosis of LLMs. It (1) grounds evaluations in multiple basic value systems from social science; (2) develops a generative evolving evaluation paradigm that automatically creates real-world test items co-evolving with ever-advancing LLMs; (3) offers multi-faceted result interpretation, including (i) fine-grained scores and case studies across 27 value dimensions for 33 leading LLMs, (ii) customized comparisons, and (iii) visualized analysis of LLMs’ alignment with cultural values. We hope Value Compass Benchmarks serves as a navigator for further enhancing LLMs’ safety and alignment, benefiting their responsible and adaptive development.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance, aligning them with human values is critical for their responsible development. Value principles serve as the foundation for clarifying alignment goals.Multiple sets of value principles have been proposed, such as HHH (helpful, honest, harmless) and instructions for data synthesis in reinforcement learning from AI feedback (RLAIF). However, most of them are heuristically crafted, without consideration of three primary challenges in practical LLM alignment: 1) Comprehensiveness to deal with diverse and even unforeseen scenarios in which LLMs could be applied; 2) Precision to provide LLMs with clear and actionable guidance in specific scenarios; and 3) Compatability to avoid internal contracts between principles.In this paper, we formalize quantitative metrics to evaluate value principles along the three desirable properties. Building on these metrics, we propose the Hierarchical Value Principle framework (HiVaP), which constructs a hierarchical principle set and retrieves principles tailored to each scenario in a cascading way, addressing above challenges.Experimental results validate that the three metrics capture the effectiveness of value principles for LLM alignment, and our HiVaP framework that enhances these metrics leads to superior alignment. Warning: This paper contains several toxic and offensive statements.

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the “black box” of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

Identifying human morals and values embedded in language is essential to empirical studies of communication. However, researchers often face substantial difficulty navigating the diversity of theoretical frameworks and data available for their analysis. Here, we contribute MoVa, a well-documented suite of resources for generalizable classification of human morals and values, consisting of (1) 16 labeled datasets and benchmarking results from four theoretically-grounded frameworks; (2) a lightweight LLM prompting strategy that outperforms fine-tuned models across multiple domains and frameworks; and (3) a new application that helps evaluate psychological surveys. In practice, we specifically recommend a classification strategy, all@once, that scores all related concepts simultaneously, resembling the well-known multi-label classifier chain. The data and methods in MoVa can facilitate many fine-grained interpretations of human and machine communication, with potential implications for the alignment of machine behavior.

Value alignment is crucial for the responsible development of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, how to define values in this context remains largely unexplored. Existing work mainly specifies values as risk criteria formulated in the AI community, e.g., fairness and privacy protection, suffering from poor clarity, adaptability and transparency. Leveraging basic values established in humanity and social science that are compatible with values across cultures, this paper introduces a novel value space spanned by multiple basic value dimensions and proposes BaseAlign, a corresponding value alignment paradigm. Applying the representative Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Values as an instantiation, we construct FULCRA, a dataset consisting of 20k (LLM output, value vector) pairs. LLMs’ outputs are mapped into the K-dim value space beyond simple binary labels, by identifying their underlying priorities for these value dimensions. Extensive analysis and experiments on FULCRA: (1) reveal the essential relation between basic values and LLMs’ behaviors, (2) demonstrate that our paradigm with basic values not only covers existing risks but also anticipates the unidentified ones, and (3) manifest BaseAlign’s superiority in alignment performance with less data, paving the way for addressing the above three challenges.

Inverted file structure is a common technique for accelerating dense retrieval. It clusters documents based on their embeddings; during searching, it probes nearby clusters w.r.t. an input query and only evaluates documents within them by subsequent codecs, thus avoiding the expensive cost from exhaustive traversal. However, the clustering is always lossy, which results in the miss of relevant documents in the probed clusters and hence degrades retrieval quality. In contrast, lexical matching, such as overlaps of salient terms, tend to be strong features for identifying relevant documents. In this work, we present the Hybrid Inverted Index (HI²), where the embedding clusters and salient terms work collaboratively to accelerate dense retrieval. To make best of both effectiveness and efficiency, we devise a cluster selector and a term selector, to construct compact inverted lists and efficiently searching through them. Moreover, we leverage simple unsupervised algorithms as well as end-to-end knowledge distillation to learn these two modules, with the latter further boosting the effectiveness. Based on comprehensive experiments on popular retrieval benchmarks, we verify that clusters and terms indeed complement each other, enabling HI² to achieve lossless retrieval quality with competitive efficiency across a variety of index settings.