mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Moral Anchor System: A Predictive Framework for AI Value Alignment and Drift Prevention

arXiv 2510.04073 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2025cs.AIcited by 2

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

Abstract (arXiv)

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as super-capable assistants has transformed productivity and decision-making across domains. Yet, this integration raises critical concerns about value alignment - ensuring AI behaviors remain consistent with human ethics and intentions. A key risk is value drift, where AI systems deviate from aligned values due to evolving contexts, learning dynamics, or unintended optimizations, potentially leading to inefficiencies or ethical breaches. We propose the Moral Anchor System (MAS), a novel framework to detect, predict, and mitigate value drift in AI agents. MAS combines real-time Bayesian inference for monitoring value states, LSTM networks for forecasting drift, and a human-centric governance layer for adaptive interventions. It emphasizes low-latency responses (<20 ms) to prevent breaches, while reducing false positives and alert fatigue via supervised fine-tuning with human feedback. Our hypothesis: integrating probabilistic drift detection, predictive analytics, and adaptive governance can reduce value drift incidents by 80 percent or more in simulations, maintaining high detection accuracy (85 percent) and low false positive rates (0.08 post-adaptation). Rigorous experiments with goal-misaligned agents validate MAS's scalability and responsiveness. MAS's originality lies in its predictive and adaptive nature, contrasting static alignment methods. Contributions include: (1) MAS architecture for AI integration; (2) empirical results prioritizing speed and usability; (3) cross-domain applicability insights; and (4) open-source code for replication.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 10 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2025.

Builds on

10 of 27 references.

References · 10

  1. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  2. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  3. 2018Continual Lifelong Learning with Neural Networks: A Reviewcited by 1,313
  4. 2018Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research directioncited by 438
  5. 2018AI safety via debatecited by 384
  6. 2016Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 298
  7. 2017Concrete Dropoutcited by 227
  8. 2018Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak expertscited by 139
  9. 2025Why human-AI relationships need socioaffective alignmentcited by 47
  10. 2025Understanding the Process of Human-AI Value Alignmentcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023Measuring Value Alignment
  2. 2026Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment
  3. 2026AI Value Alignment for Evolving Social Norms
  4. 2025The Specification Trap: Why Static Value Alignment Alone Is Insufficient for Robust Alignment
  5. 2026Constructive Alignment: Governing Preference Dynamics in Human-AI Interaction
  6. 2024ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs
  7. 2021The Challenge of Value Alignment: from Fairer Algorithms to AI Safety
  8. 2023Hybrid Approaches for Moral Value Alignment in AI Agents: a Manifesto