mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Quantifying Misalignment Between Agents: Towards a Sociotechnical Understanding of Alignment

arXiv 2406.04231 ↗First posted 6 Jun 2024cs.MA cs.AI cs.CYcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing work on the alignment problem has focused mainly on (1) qualitative descriptions of the alignment problem; (2) attempting to align AI actions with human interests by focusing on value specification and learning; and/or (3) focusing on a single agent or on humanity as a monolith. Recent sociotechnical approaches highlight the need to understand complex misalignment among multiple human and AI agents. We address this gap by adapting a computational social science model of human contention to the alignment problem. Our model quantifies misalignment in large, diverse agent groups with potentially conflicting goals across various problem areas. Misalignment scores in our framework depend on the observed agent population, the domain in question, and conflict between agents' weighted preferences. Through simulations, we demonstrate how our model captures intuitive aspects of misalignment across different scenarios. We then apply our model to two case studies, including an autonomous vehicle setting, showcasing its practical utility. Our approach offers enhanced explanatory power for complex sociotechnical environments and could inform the design of more aligned AI systems in real-world applications.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 2024.

Builds on

8 of 40 references.

References · 8

  1. 2017CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulatorcited by 2,449
  2. 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 448
  3. 2018Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research directioncited by 447
  4. 2024Cooperate or Collapse: Emergence of Sustainable Cooperation in a Society of LLM Agentscited by 125
  5. 2022The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3cited by 105
  6. 2020AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES)cited by 33
  7. 2020Value Alignment Verificationcited by 20
  8. 2022Current and Near-Term AI as a Potential Existential Risk Factorcited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.

8 papers.