Probing the Structure and Dynamics of LLM Value Expression through Value Conflicts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Ethical evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) often characterizes model values as static and monolithic. In contrast, we argue that LLM value expression is better understood as a structured yet dynamic phenomenon. To investigate this, we introduce Conflict-driven Value Probing, a controlled framework that places LLMs in value conflicts and implements four types of interventions that perturb these conflicts to probe LLM value expression. Applying this framework to ten LLMs, we identify three recurring patterns. (1) Expression duality: models shift from broad idealistic orientations in abstract assessment toward more pragmatic priorities in concrete conflicts. (2) Functional steerability: models readily reconfigure their expressed value profiles toward task-defined value objectives. (3) Bounded plasticity: such reconfiguration is not without constraints, i.e. pressure induces a security- and goal-oriented priority shift while negative framing distinguishes protected values from those more amenable to redirection. Together, these findings characterize both the structure and dynamics of LLM value expression: context flexibly reconfigures expressed priorities, yet within behavioral boundaries. This behavioral account provides a foundation for understanding controllability, alignment, and safety in LLMs. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ZeroGen-Lab/CFProbe.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.
Builds on
21 of 39 references.
References · 21
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 4,033
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,724
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,255
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,055
- 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 723
- 2022A Survey on In-context Learningcited by 721
- 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 518
9 more
- 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 412
- 2024MAP: Multi-Human-Value Alignment Palettecited by 20
- 2025Policy-as-Prompt: Turning AI Governance Rules into Guardrails for AI Agentscited by 14
- 2024PertEval: Unveiling Real Knowledge Capacity of LLMs with Knowledge-Invariant Perturbationscited by 13
- 2024Dialectal Toxicity Detection: Evaluating LLM-as-a-Judge Consistency Across Language Varietiescited by 12
- 2024Multitask Mayhem: Unveiling and Mitigating Safety Gaps in LLMs Fine-tuningcited by 8
- 2025TeleAI-Safety: A comprehensive LLM jailbreaking benchmark towards attacks, defenses, and evaluationscited by 7
- 2025Towards Trustworthy Legal AI through LLM Agents and Formal Reasoningcited by 5
- 2025Large Language Models Could Be Rote Learnerscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.