Large language models (LLMs) are currently aligned using techniques such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). However, these methods use scalar rewards that can only reflect user preferences on average . Pluralistic alignment instead seeks to capture diverse user preferences across a set of attributes, moving beyond just helpfulness and harmlessness. Toward this end, we propose a steerable pluralistic model based on few-shot comparative regression that can adapt to individual user preferences. Our approach leverages in-context learning and reasoning, grounded in a set of fine-grained attributes, to compare response options and make aligned choices. To evaluate our algorithm, we also propose two new steerable pluralistic benchmarks by adapting the Moral Integrity Corpus (MIC) and the HelpSteer2 datasets, demonstrating the applicability of our approach to value-aligned decision-making and reward modeling, respectively. Our few-shot comparative regression approach is interpretable and compatible with different attributes and LLMs, while outperforming multiple baseline and state-of-the-art methods. Our work provides new insights and research directions in pluralistic alignment, enabling a more fair and representative use of LLMs and advancing the state-of-the-art in ethical AI.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used as decision aids. However, users have diverse values and preferences that can affect their decision-making, which requires novel methods for LLM alignment and personalization. Existing LLM comparison tools largely focus on benchmarking tasks, such as knowledge-based question answering. In contrast, our proposed ALIGN system focuses on dynamic personalization of LLM-based decision-makers through prompt-based alignment to a set of fine-grained attributes. Key features of our system include robust configuration management, structured output generation with reasoning, and several algorithm implementations with swappable LLM backbones, enabling different types of analyses. Our user interface enables a qualitative, side-by-side comparison of LLMs and their alignment to various attributes, with a modular backend for easy algorithm integration. Additionally, we perform a quantitative analysis comparing alignment approaches in two different domains: demographic alignment for public opinion surveys and value alignment for medical triage decision-making. The entire ALIGN framework is open source and will enable new research on reliable, responsible, and personalized LLM-based decision-makers.

There is an emerging consensus that we need to align AI systems with human values (Gabriel, 2020; Ji et al., 2024), but it remains unclear how to apply this to language models in practice. We split the problem of "aligning to human values" into three parts: first, eliciting values from people; second, reconciling those values into an alignment target for training ML models; and third, actually training the model. In this paper, we focus on the first two parts, and ask the question: what are "good" ways to synthesize diverse human inputs about values into a target for aligning language models? To answer this question, we first define a set of 6 criteria that we believe must be satisfied for an alignment target to shape model behavior in accordance with human values. We then propose a process for eliciting and reconciling values called Moral Graph Elicitation (MGE), which uses a large language model to interview participants about their values in particular contexts; our approach is inspired by the philosophy of values advanced by Taylor (1977), Chang (2004), and others. We trial MGE with a representative sample of 500 Americans, on 3 intentionally divisive prompts (e.g. advice about abortion). Our results demonstrate that MGE is promising for improving model alignment across all 6 criteria. For example, almost all participants (89.1%) felt well represented by the process, and (89%) thought the final moral graph was fair, even if their value wasn't voted as the wisest. Our process often results in "expert" values (e.g. values from women who have solicited abortion advice) rising to the top of the moral graph, without defining who is considered an expert in advance.