Coherence Maximization Improves Pluralistic Alignment
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment
Abstract (arXiv)
Aligning AI systems with diverse human values requires value specifications grounded in concrete examples, but generating such examples without extensive human supervision remains an open challenge. We investigate what makes these examples effective, using Internal Coherence Maximization (ICM) -- which infers labels by maximizing their mutual predictability -- to generate persona-specific examples that steer a model toward a target group's values, without human supervision. Across four benchmarks spanning classification, preference, and open-ended generation, ICM-inferred in-context examples match the performance of gold labels. Crucially, coherence matters beyond individual label accuracy: with accuracy held constant, more coherent examples generalize substantially better than incoherent ones. For personas underrepresented in pretraining data, targeted human feedback on the questions where the model is least certain about a persona's values yields better generalization than the same number of labels on arbitrary questions. These results identify coherence as a key design principle for scalable value specification, leveraging the diverse human perspectives already encoded in pretrained language models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (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 21 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2026.
Builds on
21 of 31 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Open Character Training: Shaping the Persona of AI Assistants through Constitutional AI3 Nov
- 2025What's In My Human Feedback? Learning Interpretable Descriptions of Preference Data30 Oct
- 2025On the Alignment of Large Language Models with Global Human Opinion1 Sep
- 2025Steerable Pluralism: Pluralistic Alignment via Few-Shot Comparative Regression11 Aug
- 2025Whose Boat Does it Float? Improving Personalization in Preference Tuning via Inferred User Personas20 Jan
- 2024Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?18 Oct
- 2023Case Repositories: Towards Case-Based Reasoning for AI Alignment18 Nov
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback15 Dec
Other references · 13
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
- 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 443
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 303
- 2019Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AIcited by 134
- 2024STaR-GATE: Teaching Language Models to Ask Clarifying Questionscited by 99
- 2025Randomness, Not Representation: The Unreliability of Evaluating Cultural Alignment in LLMscited by 54
- 2025Monitoring Decomposition Attacks in LLMs with Lightweight Sequential Monitorscited by 21
- 2025Inverse Reinforcement Learning with Dynamic Reward Scaling for LLM Alignmentcited by 20
- 2024Self-Supervised Alignment with Mutual Information: Learning to Follow Principles without Preference Labelscited by 18
- 2025Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Prioritiescited by 13
- 2025Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligencecited by 8
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment
- 2025Unsupervised Elicitation of Language Models
- 2026Self-Improvement as Coherence Optimization: A Theoretical Account
- 2024Strong and weak alignment of large language models with human values
- 2026Toward a Theory of Value in AI Alignment
- 2024Explanation, Debate, Align: A Weak-to-Strong Framework for Language Model Generalization
- 2025Deep Value Benchmark: Measuring Whether Models Generalize Deep Values or Shallow Preferences
- 2025EigenBench: A Comparative Behavioral Measure of Value Alignment