mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

EigenBench: A Comparative Behavioral Measure of Value Alignment

arXiv 2509.01938 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2025cs.AI cs.CL cs.CYcited by 2

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Aligning AI with human values is a pressing unsolved problem. To address the lack of quantitative metrics for value alignment, we propose EigenBench: a black-box method for comparatively benchmarking language models' values. Given an ensemble of models, a constitution describing a value system, and a dataset of scenarios, our method returns a vector of scores quantifying each model's alignment to the given constitution. To produce these scores, each model judges the outputs of other models across many scenarios, and these judgments are aggregated with EigenTrust (Kamvar et al., 2003), yielding scores that reflect a weighted consensus judgment of the whole ensemble. EigenBench uses no ground truth labels, as it is designed to quantify subjective traits for which reasonable judges may disagree on the correct label. Hence, to validate our method, we collect human judgments on the same ensemble of models and show that EigenBench's judgments align closely with those of human evaluators. We further demonstrate that EigenBench can recover model rankings on the GPQA benchmark without access to objective labels, supporting its viability as a framework for evaluating subjective values for which no ground truths exist. The code is available at https://github.com/jchang153/EigenBench.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 12 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2025.

Builds on

12 of 25 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference7 Mar
  2. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback15 Dec

Other references · 10

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  3. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
  4. 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 308
  5. 2025Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIscited by 67
  6. 2025The Leaderboard Illusioncited by 66
  7. 2023Elo Uncovered: Robustness and Best Practices in Language Model Evaluationcited by 61
  8. 2025Prompt-to-Leaderboardcited by 30
  9. 2025Will AI Tell Lies to Save Sick Children? Litmus-Testing AI Values Prioritization with AIRiskDilemmascited by 18
  10. 2019Davidson-Luce model for multi-item choice with tiescited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs
  2. 2026Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment
  3. 2026Beyond Value Benchmarks: Measuring Value-Structure Alignment in Large Language Models via Symmetric Q-Sorts
  4. 2025Deep Value Benchmark: Measuring Whether Models Generalize Deep Values or Shallow Preferences
  5. 2025VAL-Bench: Belief Consistency as a measure for Value Alignment in Language Models
  6. 2024Democratizing Reward Design for Personal and Representative Value-Alignment
  7. 2025Evaluating AI Alignment in LLMs: Output Analysis of Value Priorities Across 75 Models with Human Benchmarking
  8. 2026Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models