Current AI paradigms, as "architects of experience," face fundamental challenges in explainability and value alignment. This paper introduces "Weight-Calculatism," a novel cognitive architecture grounded in first principles, and demonstrates its potential as a viable pathway toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The architecture deconstructs cognition into indivisible Logical Atoms and two fundamental operations: Pointing and Comparison. Decision-making is formalized through an interpretable Weight-Calculation model (Weight = Benefit * Probability), where all values are traceable to an auditable set of Initial Weights. This atomic decomposition enables radical explainability, intrinsic generality for novel situations, and traceable value alignment. We detail its implementation via a graph-algorithm-based computational engine and a global workspace workflow, supported by a preliminary code implementation and scenario validation. Results indicate that the architecture achieves transparent, human-like reasoning and robust learning in unprecedented scenarios, establishing a practical and theoretical foundation for building trustworthy and aligned AGI.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into applications serving users across diverse cultures, communities and demographics, it is critical to align LLMs with pluralistic human values beyond average principles (e.g., HHH). In psychological and social value theories such as Schwartz's Value Theory, pluralistic values are represented by multiple value dimensions paired with various priorities. However, existing methods encounter two challenges when aligning with such fine-grained value objectives: 1) they often treat multiple values as independent and equally important, ignoring their interdependence and relative priorities (value complexity); 2) they struggle to precisely control nuanced value priorities, especially those underrepresented ones (value steerability). To handle these challenges, we propose COUPLE, a COUnterfactual reasoning framework for PLuralistic valuE alignment. It introduces a structural causal model (SCM) to feature complex interdependency and prioritization among features, as well as the causal relationship between high-level value dimensions and behaviors. Moreover, it applies counterfactual reasoning to generate outputs aligned with any desired value objectives. Benefitting from explicit causal modeling, COUPLE also provides better interpretability. We evaluate COUPLE on two datasets with different value systems and demonstrate that COUPLE advances other baselines across diverse types of value objectives.

Cross-Domain Offline Reinforcement Learning aims to train an agent deployed in the target environment, leveraging both a limited target domain dataset and a source domain dataset with (possibly) sufficient data coverage. Due to the underlying dynamics misalignment between the source and target domain, simply merging the data from two datasets may incur inferior performance. Recent advances address this issue by selectively sharing source domain samples that exhibit dynamics alignment with the target domain. However, these approaches focus solely on dynamics alignment and overlook \textit{value alignment}, i.e., selecting high-quality, high-value samples from the source domain. In this paper, we first demonstrate that both dynamics alignment and value alignment are essential for policy learning, by examining the limitations of the current theoretical framework for cross-domain RL and establishing a concrete sub-optimality gap of a policy trained on the source domain and evaluated on the target domain. Motivated by the theoretical insights, we propose to selectively share those source domain samples with both high dynamics and value alignment and present our \textbf{\underline{D}}ynamics- and \textbf{\underline{V}}alue-aligned \textbf{\underline{D}}ata \textbf{\underline{F}}iltering (DVDF) method. We design a range of dynamics shift settings, including kinematic and morphology shifts, and evaluate DVDF on various tasks and datasets, as well as in challenging extremely low-data settings where the target domain dataset contains only 5,000 transitions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DVDF consistently outperforms prior strong baselines and delivers exceptional performance across multiple tasks and datasets.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly influence high-stakes decision-making across global contexts, ensuring their alignment with diverse cultural values has become a critical governance challenge. This study presents a Multi-Layered Auditing Platform for Responsible AI that systematically evaluates cross-cultural value alignment in China-origin and Western-origin LLMs through four integrated methodologies: Ethical Dilemma Corpus for assessing temporal stability, Diversity-Enhanced Framework (DEF) for quantifying cultural fidelity, First-Token Probability Alignment for distributional accuracy, and Multi-stAge Reasoning frameworK (MARK) for interpretable decision-making. Our comparative analysis of 20+ leading models, such as Qwen, GPT-4o, Claude, LLaMA, and DeepSeek, reveals universal challenges-fundamental instability in value systems, systematic under-representation of younger demographics, and non-linear relationships between model scale and alignment quality-alongside divergent regional development trajectories. While China-origin models increasingly emphasize multilingual data integration for context-specific optimization, Western models demonstrate greater architectural experimentation but persistent U.S.-centric biases. Neither paradigm achieves robust cross-cultural generalization. We establish that Mistral-series architectures significantly outperform LLaMA3-series in cross-cultural alignment, and that Full-Parameter Fine-Tuning on diverse datasets surpasses Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback in preserving cultural variation...

Large language models are increasingly used in applications where alignment with human values is critical. While model fine-tuning is often employed to ensure safe responses, this technique is static and does not lend itself to everyday situations involving dynamic values and preferences. In this paper, we present a practical, reproducible, and model-agnostic procedure to evaluate whether a prompt candidate can effectively steer generated text toward specific human values, formalising a scoring method to quantify the presence and gain of target values in generated responses. We apply our method to a variant of the Wizard-Vicuna language model, using Schwartz's theory of basic human values and a structured evaluation through a dialogue dataset. With this setup, we compare a baseline prompt to one explicitly conditioned on values, and show that value steering is possible even without altering the model or dynamically optimis-ing prompts.

Ensuring that Large Language Models (LLMs) align with the diverse and evolving human values across different regions and cultures remains a critical challenge in AI ethics. Current alignment approaches often yield superficial conformity rather than genuine ethical understanding, failing to address the complex, context-dependent nature of human values. In this paper, we propose a novel ethical reasoning paradigm for LLMs inspired by well-established ethical decision-making models, aiming at enhancing diverse human value alignment through deliberative ethical reasoning. Our framework consists of a structured five-step process, including contextual fact gathering, hierarchical social norm identification, option generation, multiple-lens ethical impact analysis, and reflection. This theory-grounded approach guides LLMs through an interpretable reasoning process that enhances their ability to understand regional specificities and perform nuanced ethical analysis, which can be implemented with either prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning methods. We perform evaluations on the SafeWorld benchmark that specially designed for regional value alignment. Experimental results demonstrate our framework significantly improves LLM alignment with diverse human values compared to baseline methods, enabling more accurate social norm identification and more culturally appropriate reasoning. Our work provides a concrete pathway toward developing LLMs that align more effectively with the multifaceted values of global societies through interdisciplinary research.

Offline reinforcement learning (RL) aims to learn a policy from a fixed dataset without additional interactions with the environment.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) as super-capable assistants has transformed productivity and decision-making across domains. Yet, this integration raises critical concerns about value alignment - ensuring AI behaviors remain consistent with human ethics and intentions. A key risk is value drift, where AI systems deviate from aligned values due to evolving contexts, learning dynamics, or unintended optimizations, potentially leading to inefficiencies or ethical breaches. We propose the Moral Anchor System (MAS), a novel framework to detect, predict, and mitigate value drift in AI agents. MAS combines real-time Bayesian inference for monitoring value states, LSTM networks for forecasting drift, and a human-centric governance layer for adaptive interventions. It emphasizes low-latency responses (<20 ms) to prevent breaches, while reducing false positives and alert fatigue via supervised fine-tuning with human feedback. Our hypothesis: integrating probabilistic drift detection, predictive analytics, and adaptive governance can reduce value drift incidents by 80 percent or more in simulations, maintaining high detection accuracy (85 percent) and low false positive rates (0.08 post-adaptation). Rigorous experiments with goal-misaligned agents validate MAS's scalability and responsiveness. MAS's originality lies in its predictive and adaptive nature, contrasting static alignment methods. Contributions include: (1) MAS architecture for AI integration; (2) empirical results prioritizing speed and usability; (3) cross-domain applicability insights; and (4) open-source code for replication.

A.1 Detailed Re-alignment T ask Formulation and Training Setup In Figure A1, we show the procedure for converting the data samples in the alignment datasets into training data of AEM (negative samples used in AIL are generated similarly). Then our decipher module will translate these special tokens into natural language. For AEM, we fine-tune the LM with the above-mentioned Source-CoE-Target data (as shown in Figure A1, "Input for AEM") with the common language modeling objective, which is to maximize the probability of generating ground truth tokens at each decoding step. We train with three epochs for each task by default but set an early-stopping condition when the evaluation loss does not decrease (i.e., plateaus) for five intermediate evaluation steps. LM can know the boundary between Context + Source and Chain-of-Edits (CoEs) + Target.

Background: Value alignment in computer science research is often used to refer to the process of aligning artificial intelligence with humans, but the way the phrase is used often lacks precision. Objectives: In this paper, we conduct a systematic literature review to advance the understanding of value alignment in artificial intelligence by characterising the topic in the context of its research literature. We use this to suggest a more precise definition of the term. Methods: We analyse 172 value alignment research articles that have been published in recent years and synthesise their content using thematic analyses. Results: Our analysis leads to six themes: value alignment drivers & approaches; challenges in value alignment; values in value alignment; cognitive processes in humans and AI; human-agent teaming; and designing and developing value-aligned systems. Conclusions: By analysing these themes in the context of the literature we define value alignment as an ongoing process between humans and autonomous agents that aims to express and implement abstract values in diverse contexts, while managing the cognitive limits of both humans and AI agents and also balancing the conflicting ethical and political demands generated by the values in different groups. Our analysis gives rise to a set of research challenges and opportunities in the field of value alignment for future work.