Labels have Human Values: Value Calibration of Subjective Tasks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Although pluralistic societies exhibit diverse human values that lead to legitimate disagreements in subjective tasks (e.g., safety and preference judgments), NLP models trained on such subjective labels often ignore latent value structures, resulting in miscalibrated predictions over relevant value classes. We propose MultiCalibrated Subjective Task Learning (MC-STL), a framework that identifies latent value groups from annotations (via label rationale similarity, expert value taxonomies, or annotator sociocultural descriptors) and enforces value-conditional calibration through value group-specific representations. MC-STL applies to binary, ordinal, and preference learning settings, and is evaluated on multiple datasets covering toxic chatbot conversations, value reasoning, T2I-safety and preference alignment. The results demonstrate that MC-STL consistently outperforms existing baselines, achieving multicalibration across relevant value groups, while delivering gains in probabilistic prediction performance.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jan 2026.
Builds on
24 of 77 references.
References · 24
- 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2020Longformer: The Long-Document Transformercited by 3,413
- 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
- 2021Alignment of Language Agentscited by 168
- 2019Rank consistent ordinal regression for neural networks with application to age estimationcited by 133
- 2023Distributional Preference Learning: Understanding and Accounting for Hidden Context in RLHFcited by 133
- 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 126
- 2023When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Taskscited by 90
- 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
12 more
- 2023Value FULCRA: Mapping Large Language Models to the Multidimensional Spectrum of Basic Human Valuescited by 50
- 2020Detecting Stance in Media on Global Warmingcited by 48
- 2023Capturing Perspectives of Crowdsourced Annotators in Subjective Learning Taskscited by 29
- 2025Value Profiles for Encoding Human Variationcited by 29
- 2023Disentangling Perceptions of Offensiveness: Cultural and Moral Correlatescited by 26
- 2024Policy Filtration for RLHF to Mitigate Noise in Reward Modelscited by 22
- 2024On the Essence and Prospect: An Investigation of Alignment Approaches for Big Modelscited by 21
- 2024Towards Data-Centric RLHF: Simple Metrics for Preference Dataset Comparisoncited by 21
- 2025Internal Value Alignment in Large Language Models through Controlled Value Vector Activationcited by 16
- 2024Value Imprint: A Technique for Auditing the Human Values Embedded in RLHF Datasetscited by 11
- 2024Voices in a Crowd: Searching for Clusters of Unique Perspectivescited by 9
- 2025Reward Model Perspectives: Whose Opinions Do Reward Models Reward?cited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026Calibrating Model-Based Evaluation Metrics for Summarization19 Apr 2026