Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties
Taylor Sorensen, Liwei Jiang, Jena D. Hwang, Sydney Levine, Valentina Pyatkin, Peter West, Nouha Dziri, Ximing Lu, Kavel Rao, Chandra Bhagavatula, Maarten Sap, John Tasioulas, Yejin Choi
Abstract
Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another (e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value conflicts. To improve AI systems to better reflect value pluralism, the first-order challenge is to explore the extent to which AI systems can model pluralistic human values, rights, and duties as well as their interaction. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations. ValuePrism's contextualized values are generated by GPT-4 and deemed high-quality by human annotators 91% of the time. We conduct a large-scale study with annotators across diverse social and demographic backgrounds to try to understand whose values are represented. With ValuePrism, we build Value Kaleidoscope (or Kaleido), an open, light-weight, and structured language-based multitask model that generates, explains, and assesses the relevance and valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human values, rights, and duties within a specific context. Humans prefer the sets of values output by our system over the teacher GPT-4, finding them more accurate and with broader coverage. In addition, we demonstrate that Kaleido can help explain variability in human decision-making by outputting contrasting values. Finally, we show that Kaleido's representations transfer to other philosophical frameworks and datasets, confirming the benefit of an explicit, modular, and interpretable approach to value pluralism. We hope that our work will serve as a step to making more explicit the implicit values behind human decision-making and to steering AI systems to make decisions that are more in accordance with them.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 843f02ee-cc9d-4800-9f12-81d2544502f6Cited by top-tier papers42
- Aligning to Thousands of Preferences via System Message GeneralizationSeongyun Lee, Sue Hyun Park, Seungone Kim, Minjoon SeoNeurIPS 2024 · 102 citations
- Culture is Not Trivia: Sociocultural Theory for Cultural NLPNaitian Zhou, David Bamman, Isaac L. BleamanACL 2025 · 33 citations
- When One LLM Drools, Multi-LLM Collaboration RulesShangbin Feng, Wenxuan Ding, Alisa Liu, Zifeng Wang et al.ACL 2026 · 27 citations
- Towards Measuring and Modeling "Culture" in LLMs: A SurveyMuhammad Farid Adilazuarda, Sagnik Mukherjee, Pradhyumna Lavania, Siddhant Singh et al.EMNLP 2024 · 21 citations
- Spectrum Tuning: Post-Training for Distributional Coverage and In-Context SteerabilityTaylor Sorensen, Benjamin Newman, Jared Moore, Chan Young Park et al.ICLR 2026 · 19 citations
Builds on16
- Aligning AI With Shared Human ValuesDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch et al.ICLR 2021 · 878 citations
- Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee et al.ICML 2023 · 764 citations
- Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model TrainingZeqiu Wu, Yushi Hu, Weijia Shi, Nouha Dziri et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 516 citations
- (Comet-) Atomic 2020: On Symbolic and Neural Commonsense Knowledge GraphsJena D. Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ronan Le Bras, Jeff Da et al.AAAI 2021 · 458 citations
- Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMsNino Scherrer, Claudia Shi, Amir Feder, David M. BleiNeurIPS 2023 · 316 citations
Related papers
- DailyDilemmas: Revealing Value Preferences of LLMs with Quandaries of Daily LifeYu Ying Chiu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin ChoiICLR 2025 · 2 citations
- Kaleidoscope: In-language Exams for Massively Multilingual Vision EvaluationIsrafel Salazar, Manuel Fernández Burda, Shayekh Bin Islam, Arshia Soltani Moakhar et al.ICLR 2026 · 8 citations
- CLASH: Evaluating Language Models on Judging High-Stakes Dilemmas from Multiple PerspectivesAyoung Lee, Ryan Sungmo Kwon, Peter Railton, Lu WangICLR 2026 · 13 citations
- MAP: Multi-Human-Value Alignment PaletteXinran Wang, Qi Le, Ammar Ahmed, Enmao Diao et al.ICLR 2025
- PerSpectra: A Scalable and Configurable Pluralist Benchmark of Perspectives from ArgumentsShangrui Nie, Kian Omoomi, Lucie Flek, Zhixue Zhao et al.ICLR 2026 · 3 citations
