Fully Automated Identification of Lexical Alignment and Preference-Stage Shifts in Large Language Models
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment
Abstract (arXiv)
The language used by digital chat assistants such as ChatGPT can diverge from human expectations (misalignment). Research, mostly on Scientific English, has described both what divergences occur and, to some extent, why, linking them to the training stage of human preference learning. Yet, existing approaches rely on manual curation. This paper introduces two curation-free, assumption-light evaluation metrics: the Lexical Alignment Score, which identifies lexical overuse, and the Triangulated Preference Shift, which quantifies how much of such shifts can be attributed to human preference learning. Using PubMed abstracts, continuations were generated and measured using windowed document prevalence across six model families (Falcon, Gemma, Llama, Mistral, OLMo, Yi). The procedure identifies, without manual intervention, overused items such as 'suggest', 'additionally', and 'strategy', and estimates their link to preference learning. Our findings replicate prior work and remain stable across parameter settings, random seeds, and evaluation on further data. The approach scales readily and enables systematic study of lexical (mis)alignment beyond Scientific English and across languages, and as such, the metrics have the potential to contribute to improved alignment for future models and understanding of its origins.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 38 of its 83 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2026.
Builds on
38 of 83 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Flattery, Fluff, and Fog: Diagnosing and Mitigating Idiosyncratic Biases in Preference Models5 Jun
- 2024One fish, two fish, but not the whole sea: Alignment reduces language models' conceptual diversity7 Nov
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations19 Dec
Other references · 35
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
- 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
- 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 726
- 2024Yi: Open Foundation Models by 01.AIcited by 719
23 more
- 2023The Falcon Series of Open Language Modelscited by 535
- 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 496
- 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 448
- 2023Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected?cited by 386
- 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 356
- 2020Universal Dependencies v2: An Evergrowing Multilingual Treebank Collectioncited by 271
- 2023Self-Consuming Generative Models Go MADcited by 250
- 2023Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?cited by 192
- 2024Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Paperscited by 118
- 2025Verbalized Sampling: How to Mitigate Mode Collapse and Unlock LLM Diversitycited by 105
- 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 90
- 2023Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loopcited by 79
- 2016Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligencecited by 74
- 2024On the Algorithmic Bias of Aligning Large Language Models with RLHF: Preference Collapse and Matching Regularizationcited by 72
- 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
- 2024From Lists to Emojis: How Format Bias Affects Model Alignmentcited by 49
- 2024Empirical evidence of Large Language Model's influence on human spoken communicationcited by 27
- 2023Distinguishing ChatGPT(-3.5, -4)-generated and human-written papers through Japanese stylometric analysiscited by 16
- 2024Towards the relationship between AIGC in manuscript writing and author profiles: evidence from preprints in LLMscited by 14
- 2025Comparing LLM-generated and human-authored news text using formal syntactic theorycited by 11
- 2025Linguistic Characteristics of AI-Generated Text: A Surveycited by 7
- 2025Model Misalignment and Language Change: Traces of AI-Associated Language in Unscripted Spoken Englishcited by 4
- 2025LLM Encoder vs. Decoder: Robust Detection of Chinese AI-Generated Text with LoRAcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Isolating LLM Lexical Bias: A Curation-Free Triangulated Metric for Preference-Stage Learning
- 2024Uncovering Factor Level Preferences to Improve Human-Model Alignment
- 2024A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Models
- 2025Alignment Revisited: Are Large Language Models Consistent in Stated and Revealed Preferences?
- 2025Word Overuse and Alignment in Large Language Models: The Influence of Learning from Human Feedback
- 2024Understanding the Learning Dynamics of Alignment with Human Feedback
- 2026Stayin' Aligned Over Time: Towards Longitudinal Human-LLM Alignment via Contextual Reflection and Privacy-Preserving Behavioral Data
- 2024Towards a Unified View of Preference Learning for Large Language Models: A Survey