The importance of benchmarks for assessing the values of language models has been pronounced due to the growing need of more authentic, human-aligned responses. However, existing benchmarks rely on human or machine annotations that are vulnerable to value-related biases. Furthermore, the tested scenarios often diverge from real-world contexts in which models are commonly used to generate text and express values. To address these issues, we propose the Value Portrait benchmark, a reliable framework for evaluating LLMs' value orientations with two key characteristics. First, the benchmark consists of items that capture real-life user-LLM interactions, enhancing the relevance of assessment results to real-world LLM usage. Second, each item is rated by human subjects based on its similarity to their own thoughts, and correlations between these ratings and the subjects' actual value scores are derived. This psychometrically validated approach ensures that items strongly correlated with specific values serve as reliable items for assessing those values. Through evaluating 44 LLMs with our benchmark, we find that these models prioritize Benevolence, Security, and Self-Direction values while placing less emphasis on Tradition, Power, and Achievement values. Also, our analysis reveals biases in how LLMs perceive various demographic groups, deviating from real human data.

Rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into societal applications has intensified concerns about their alignment with universal ethical principles, as their internal value representations remain opaque despite behavioral alignment advancements. Current approaches struggle to systematically interpret how values are encoded in neural architectures, limited by datasets that prioritize superficial judgments over mechanistic analysis. We introduce ValueLocate, a mechanistic interpretability framework grounded in the Schwartz Values Survey, to address this gap. Our method first constructs ValueInsight, a dataset that operationalizes four dimensions of universal value through behavioral contexts in the real world. Leveraging this dataset, we develop a neuron identification method that calculates activation differences between opposing value aspects, enabling precise localization of value-critical neurons without relying on computationally intensive attribution methods. Our proposed validation method demonstrates that targeted manipulation of these neurons effectively alters model value orientations, establishing causal relationships between neurons and value representations. This work advances the foundation for value alignment by bridging psychological value frameworks with neuron analysis in LLMs.

Assessing Large Language Models (LLMs)' underlying value differences enables comprehensive comparison of their misalignment, cultural adaptability, and biases. Nevertheless, current value measurement datasets face the informativeness challenge: with often outdated, contaminated, or generic test questions, they can only capture the shared value orientations among different LLMs, leading to saturated and thus uninformative results. To address this problem, we introduce AdAEM, a novel, self-extensible assessment framework for revealing LLMs' inclinations. Distinct from previous static benchmarks, AdAEM can automatically and adaptively generate and extend its test questions. This is achieved by probing the internal value boundaries of a diverse set of LLMs developed across cultures and time periods in an in-context optimization manner. The optimization process theoretically maximizes an information-theoretic objective to extract the latest or culturally controversial topics, providing more distinguishable and informative insights about models' value differences. In this way, AdAEM is able to co-evolve with the development of LLMs, consistently tracking their value dynamics. Using AdAEM, we generate 12,310 questions grounded in Schwartz Value Theory, conduct an extensive analysis to manifest our method's validity and effectiveness, and benchmark the values of 16 LLMs, laying the groundwork for better value research.

Values are core drivers of individual and collective perception, cognition, and behavior. Value systems, such as Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values, delineate the hierarchy and interplay among these values, enabling cross-disciplinary investigations into decision-making and societal dynamics. Recently, the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised concerns regarding their elusive intrinsic values. Despite growing efforts in evaluating, understanding, and aligning LLM values, a psychologically grounded LLM value system remains underexplored. This study addresses the gap by introducing the Generative Psycho-Lexical Approach (GPLA), a scalable, adaptable, and theoretically informed method for constructing value systems. Leveraging GPLA, we propose a psychologically grounded five-factor value system tailored for LLMs. For systematic validation, we present three benchmarking tasks that integrate psychological principles with cutting-edge AI priorities. Our results reveal that the proposed value system meets standard psychological criteria, better captures LLM values, improves LLM safety prediction, and enhances LLM alignment, when compared to the canonical Schwartz's values.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming diverse fields and gaining increasing influence as human proxies. This development underscores the urgent need for evaluating value orientations and understanding of LLMs to ensure their responsible integration into public-facing applications. This work introduces ValueBench, the first comprehensive psychometric benchmark for evaluating value orientations and value understanding in LLMs. ValueBench collects data from 44 established psychometric inventories, encompassing 453 multifaceted value dimensions. We propose an evaluation pipeline grounded in realistic human-AI interactions to probe value orientations, along with novel tasks for evaluating value understanding in an open-ended value space. With extensive experiments conducted on six representative LLMs, we unveil their shared and distinctive value orientations and exhibit their ability to approximate expert conclusions in value-related extraction and generation tasks. ValueBench is openly accessible at https://github.com/Value4AI/ValueBench.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the AI field but also pose potential safety and ethical risks. Deciphering LLMs' embedded values becomes crucial for assessing and mitigating their risks. Despite extensive investigation into LLMs' values, previous studies heavily rely on human-oriented value systems in social sciences. Then, a natural question arises: Do LLMs possess unique values beyond those of humans? Delving into it, this work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct LLMs' unique value system from scratch, leveraging psychological methodologies from human personality/value research. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs, synthesizing a taxonomy that culminates in a comprehensive value framework via factor analysis and semantic clustering. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system. Based on this system, we further develop tailored projective tests to evaluate and analyze the value inclinations of LLMs across different model sizes, training methods, and data sources.

Recent research on reinforcement learning in pure-conflict and pure-common interest games has emphasized the importance of population heterogeneity. In contrast, studies of reinforcement learning in mixed-motive games have primarily leveraged homogeneous approaches. Given the defining characteristic of mixed-motive games--the imperfect correlation of incentives between group members--we study the effect of population heterogeneity on mixed-motive reinforcement learning. We draw on interdependence theory from social psychology and imbue reinforcement learning agents with Social Value Orientation (SVO), a flexible formalization of preferences over group outcome distributions. We subsequently explore the effects of diversity in SVO on populations of reinforcement learning agents in two mixed-motive Markov games. We demonstrate that heterogeneity in SVO generates meaningful and complex behavioral variation among agents similar to that suggested by interdependence theory. Empirical results in these mixed-motive dilemmas suggest agents trained in heterogeneous populations develop particularly generalized, high-performing policies relative to those trained in homogeneous populations.