A Geometric Perspective on Stabilizing Value Conflict Resolution
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to navigate value conflicts when trained with the compressed scalar rewards of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). To address this challenge, we investigate how chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can help improve performance in this domain. Geometrically, we show that CoT correlates with further smoothing the model's loss landscape in its sharpest direction, helping resolve the optimization instability of traditional scalar rewards. We also demonstrate via relevant downstream benchmarks that value conflict-focused CoT may generalize to different kinds of moral reasoning, demonstrating that this CoT has the potential to be an effective mechanism for better moral reasoning. To capitalize on this potential, we create a new value conflict-focused CoT design that further smooths the sharpest direction of the loss landscape and increases moral reasoning performance. This finding shows that explicitly modifying and improving the design of reasoning dynamics offers a promising avenue for improving model performance on user requests with complex value conflicts, advancing pluralistic alignment in LLMs.
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 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jul 2026.
Builds on
18 of 27 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2026AI Alignment Breaks at the Edge23 Feb
Other references · 17
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2017Visualizing the Loss Landscape of Neural Netscited by 1,130
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 518
- 2024Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Modelscited by 308
- 2019An Investigation into Neural Net Optimization via Hessian Eigenvalue Densitycited by 292
- 2019PyHessian: Neural Networks Through the Lens of the Hessiancited by 292
- 2024Regularizing Hidden States Enables Learning Generalizable Reward Model for LLMscited by 142
- 2022When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgmentcited by 93
- 2025STAIR: Improving Safety Alignment with Introspective Reasoningcited by 77
- 2025Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Prioritiescited by 13
5 more
- 2026Accelerating LLM Pre-Training through Flat-Direction Dynamics Enhancementcited by 8
- 2024Evaluating Loss Landscapes from a Topology Perspectivecited by 3
- 2025Sharpness of Minima in Deep Matrix Factorizationcited by 2
- 2026Landscaper: Understanding Loss Landscapes Through Multi-Dimensional Topological Analysiscited by 1
- 2026Jailbreaking Large Language Models with Morality Attackscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Exploring Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Steerable Pluralistic Alignment
- 2026Where Paths Split: Localized, Calibrated Control of Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2026Ulterior Motives: Detecting Misaligned Reasoning in Continuous Thought Models
- 2026Narration-of-Thought: Inference-Time Scaffolding for Defeasible Ethical Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2026Does LLM Alignment Really Need Diversity? An Empirical Study of Adapting RLVR Methods for Moral Reasoning
- 2025Direct Value Optimization: Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs with Refined Values
- 2025Structured Moral Reasoning in Language Models: A Value-Grounded Evaluation Framework
- 2026CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models