mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Deep Value Benchmark: Measuring Whether Models Generalize Deep Values or Shallow Preferences

arXiv 2511.02109 ↗First posted 3 Nov 2025cs.AI cs.CL cs.CYcited by 6

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

Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce the Deep Value Benchmark (DVB), an evaluation framework that directly tests whether large language models (LLMs) learn fundamental human values or merely surface-level preferences. This distinction is critical for AI alignment: Systems that capture deeper values are likely to generalize human intentions robustly, while those that capture only superficial patterns in preference data risk producing misaligned behavior. The DVB uses a novel experimental design with controlled confounding between deep values (e.g., moral principles) and shallow features (e.g., superficial attributes). In the training phase, we expose LLMs to human preference data with deliberately correlated deep and shallow features -- for instance, where a user consistently prefers (non-maleficence, formal language) options over (justice, informal language) alternatives. The testing phase then breaks these correlations, presenting choices between (justice, formal language) and (non-maleficence, informal language) options. This design allows us to precisely measure a model's Deep Value Generalization Rate (DVGR) -- the probability of generalizing based on the underlying value rather than the shallow feature. Across 9 different models, the average DVGR is just 0.30. All models generalize deep values less than chance. Larger models have a (slightly) lower DVGR than smaller models. We are releasing our dataset, which was subject to three separate human validation experiments. DVB provides an interpretable measure of a core feature of alignment.

Key facts. Cited by 6 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 35 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Nov 2025.

Builds on

35 of 65 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Style Outweighs Substance: Failure Modes of LLM Judges in Alignment Benchmarking23 Sep
  2. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations15 Apr
  3. 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations19 Dec
  4. 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Values5 Aug

Other references · 31

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  4. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  5. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  6. 2022Emergent Abilities of Large Language Modelscited by 2,483
  7. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  8. 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
  9. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,227
  10. 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,023
  11. 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modelingcited by 480
  12. 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
19 more
  1. 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 312
  2. 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 256
  3. 2024RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Stylecited by 168
  4. 2021Goal Misgeneralization in Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 122
  5. 2022Goal Misgeneralization: Why Correct Specifications Aren't Enough For Correct Goalscited by 120
  6. 2017AI Safety Gridworldscited by 108
  7. 2021Abstraction and Analogy-Making in Artificial Intelligencecited by 103
  8. 2023The ConceptARC Benchmark: Evaluating Understanding and Generalization in the ARC Domaincited by 97
  9. 2023Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Dutiescited by 97
  10. 2024Generalization v.s. Memorization: Tracing Language Models' Capabilities Back to Pretraining Datacited by 83
  11. 2025Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIscited by 63
  12. 2025Mind the Value-Action Gap: Do LLMs Act in Alignment with Their Values?cited by 49
  13. 2023Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?cited by 39
  14. 2025Linear Representations of Political Perspective Emerge in Large Language Modelscited by 30
  15. 2024ValueBench: Towards Comprehensively Evaluating Value Orientations and Understanding of Large Language Modelscited by 19
  16. 2024Plurals: A System for Guiding LLMs Via Simulated Social Ensemblescited by 17
  17. 2023Market Concentration Implications of Foundation Modelscited by 15
  18. 2023Do large language models solve verbal analogies like children do?cited by 13
  19. 2024Seeing Like an AI: How LLMs Apply (and Misapply) Wikipedia Neutrality Normscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Strong Preferences Affect the Robustness of Preference Models and Value Alignment
  2. 2026Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models
  3. 2026Beyond Value Benchmarks: Measuring Value-Structure Alignment in Large Language Models via Symmetric Q-Sorts
  4. 2024Can DPO Learn Diverse Human Values? A Theoretical Scaling Law
  5. 2024Reward-Augmented Data Enhances Direct Preference Alignment of LLMs
  6. 2024Are the Values of LLMs Structurally Aligned with Humans? A Causal Perspective
  7. 2026Geometry of Values: Task Vector Composition for Ethical Preference Alignment in Language Models
  8. 2025EigenBench: A Comparative Behavioral Measure of Value Alignment