mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Taking a SEAT: Predicting Value Interpretations from Sentiment, Emotion, Argument, and Topic Annotations

arXiv 2510.01976 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2025cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Our interpretation of value concepts is shaped by our sociocultural background and lived experiences, and is thus subjective. Recognizing individual value interpretations is important for developing AI systems that can align with diverse human perspectives and avoid bias toward majority viewpoints. To this end, we investigate whether a language model can predict individual value interpretations by leveraging multi-dimensional subjective annotations as a proxy for their interpretive lens. That is, we evaluate whether providing examples of how an individual annotates Sentiment, Emotion, Argument, and Topics (SEAT dimensions) helps a language model in predicting their value interpretations. Our experiment across different zero- and few-shot settings demonstrates that providing all SEAT dimensions simultaneously yields superior performance compared to individual dimensions and a baseline where no information about the individual is provided. Furthermore, individual variations across annotators highlight the importance of accounting for the incorporation of individual subjective annotators. To the best of our knowledge, this controlled setting, although small in size, is the first attempt to go beyond demographics and investigate the impact of annotation behavior on value prediction, providing a solid foundation for future large-scale validation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2025.

Builds on

21 of 53 references.

References · 21

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,483
  3. 2020GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotionscited by 479
  4. 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 129
  5. 2024Personalization of Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 100
  6. 2024Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?cited by 99
  7. 2023Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Dutiescited by 97
  8. 2023When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Taskscited by 89
  9. 2022Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotationcited by 67
  10. 2023Everyone's Voice Matters: Quantifying Annotation Disagreement Using Demographic Informationcited by 52
  11. 2023The Ecological Fallacy in Annotation: Modelling Human Label Variation goes beyond Sociodemographicscited by 45
  12. 2021ValueNet: A New Dataset for Human Value Driven Dialogue Systemcited by 34
9 more
  1. 2019MoralStrength: Exploiting a Moral Lexicon and Embedding Similarity for Moral Foundations Predictioncited by 31
  2. 2025Beyond Demographics: Fine-tuning Large Language Models to Predict Individuals' Subjective Text Perceptionscited by 31
  3. 2022The Moral Debater: A Study on the Computational Generation of Morally Framed Argumentscited by 22
  4. 2023Do Differences in Values Influence Disagreements in Online Discussions?cited by 15
  5. 2022Learning to Adapt Domain Shifts of Moral Values via Instance Weightingcited by 11
  6. 2024Value Preferences Estimation and Disambiguation in Hybrid Participatory Systemscited by 7
  7. 2024Re-examining Sexism and Misogyny Classification with Annotator Attitudescited by 7
  8. 2024Designing NLP Systems That Adapt to Diverse Worldviewscited by 2
  9. 2025News is More than a Collection of Facts: Moral Frame Preserving News Summarizationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.