mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Beyond Preferences: Learning Alignment Principles Grounded in Human Reasons and Values

arXiv 2601.18760 ↗First posted 26 Jan 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

A crucial consideration when developing and deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) is the human values to which these models are aligned. In the constitutional framework of alignment models are aligned to a set of principles (the constitution) specified in natural language. However, it is unclear how to fairly determine this constitution with widespread stakeholder input. In this work we propose Grounded Constitutional AI (GCAI), a unified framework for generating constitutions of principles that are representative of both users' general expectations toward AI (general principles) and their interaction-time preferences (contextual principles). We extend the Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) approach to generate contextual principles from human preference annotation data by leveraging human-provided textitreasons for their preferences. We supplement these contextual principles with general principles surfaced from user statements of textitvalues regarding AI. We show that a constitution generated by GCAI is preferred by humans over one generated through ICAI both personally, and for widespread use in governing AI behavior. Additionally participants consider the GCAI constitution to be more morally grounded, coherent, and pluralistic.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 13 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2026.

Builds on

13 of 42 references.

References · 13

  1. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  2. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  3. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
  4. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
  5. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
  6. 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
  7. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
  8. 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
  9. 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 500
  10. 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 263
  11. 2024Generalized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Offline Alignmentcited by 157
  12. 2024ALERT: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Safety through Red Teamingcited by 98
1 more
  1. 2025Reclaiming Constitutional Authority of Algorithmic Powercited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Decoding Human Preferences in Alignment: An Improved Approach to Inverse Constitutional AI
  2. 2024ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs
  3. 2026Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment
  4. 2024Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment
  5. 2024Inverse Constitutional AI: Compressing Preferences into Principles
  6. 2026From Constitutions to Control: Interpretable Rewards for Aligning Language Models
  7. 2026How AI Systems Think About Education: Analyzing Latent Preference Patterns in Large Language Models
  8. 2025Evaluating AI Alignment in LLMs: Output Analysis of Value Priorities Across 75 Models with Human Benchmarking