Evaluations of LLMs' ethical risks and value inclinations often rely on short-form surveys and psychometric tests, yet real-world use involves long-form, open-ended responses -- leaving value-related risks and preferences in practical settings largely underexplored. In this work, we ask: Do value preferences inferred from short-form tests align with those expressed in long-form outputs? To address this question, we compare value preferences elicited from short-form reactions and long-form responses, varying the number of arguments in the latter to capture users' differing verbosity preferences. Analyzing five LLMs (llama3-8b, gemma2-9b, mistral-7b, qwen2-7b, and olmo-7b), we find (1) a weak correlation between value preferences inferred from short-form and long-form responses across varying argument counts, and (2) similarly weak correlation between preferences derived from any two distinct long-form generation settings. (3) Alignment yields only modest gains in the consistency of value expression. Further, we examine how long-form generation attributes relate to value preferences, finding that argument specificity negatively correlates with preference strength, while representation across scenarios shows a positive correlation. Our findings underscore the need for more robust methods to ensure consistent value expression across diverse applications.

The global rise in homelessness calls for urgent and alternative policy solutions. Non-profits and governmental organizations alert about the many challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness (PEH), which include not only the lack of shelter but also the lack of opportunities for personal development. In this context, the capability approach (CA), which underpins the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), provides a comprehensive framework to assess inequity in terms of real opportunities. This paper explores how the CA can be combined with agent-based modelling and reinforcement learning. The goals are: (1) implementing the CA as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), (2) building on such MDP to develop a rich decision-making model that accounts for more complex motivators of behaviour, such as values and needs, and (3) developing an agent-based simulation framework that allows to assess alternative policies aiming to expand or restore people's capabilities. The framework is developed in a real case study of health inequity and homelessness, working in collaboration with stakeholders, non-profits and domain experts. The ultimate goal of the project is to develop a novel agent-based simulation framework, rooted in the CA, which can be replicated in a diversity of social contexts to assess policies in a non-invasive way.

Despite recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), it poses challenges to ensure personalized decision-making in tasks that are not considered in training datasets. To address this issue, we propose ValuePilot, a two-phase value-driven decision-making framework comprising a dataset generation toolkit DGT and a decision-making module DMM trained on the generated data. DGT is capable of generating scenarios based on value dimensions and closely mirroring real-world tasks, with automated filtering techniques and human curation to ensure the validity of the dataset. In the generated dataset, DMM learns to recognize the inherent values of scenarios, computes action feasibility and navigates the trade-offs between multiple value dimensions to make personalized decisions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that, given human value preferences, our DMM most closely aligns with human decisions, outperforming Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Gemini-2-flash, Llama-3.1-405b and GPT-4o. This research is a preliminary exploration of value-driven decision-making. We hope it will stimulate interest in value-driven decision-making and personalized decision-making within the community.

An ethical dilemma describes a choice between two "right" options involving conflicting moral values. We present a comprehensive evaluation of how LLMs navigate ethical dilemmas. Specifically, we investigate LLMs on their (1) sensitivity in comprehending ethical dilemmas, (2) consistency in moral value choice, (3) consideration of consequences, and (4) ability to align their responses to a moral value preference explicitly or implicitly specified in a prompt. Drawing inspiration from a leading ethical framework, we construct a dataset comprising 1,730 ethical dilemmas involving four pairs of conflicting values. We evaluate 20 well-known LLMs from six families. Our experiments reveal that: (1) LLMs exhibit pronounced preferences between major value pairs, and prioritize truth over loyalty, community over individual, and long-term over short-term considerations. (2) The larger LLMs tend to support a deontological perspective, maintaining their choices of actions even when negative consequences are specified. (3) Explicit guidelines are more effective in guiding LLMs' moral choice than in-context examples. Lastly, our experiments highlight the limitation of LLMs in comprehending different formulations of ethical dilemmas.

As we increasingly seek guidance from LLMs for decision-making in daily life, many of these decisions are not clear-cut and depend significantly on the personal values and ethical standards of the users. We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma includes two possible actions and with each action, the affected parties and human values invoked. Based on these dilemmas, we consolidated a set of human values across everyday topics e.g., interpersonal relationships, workplace, and environmental issues. We evaluated LLMs on these dilemmas to determine what action they will take and the values represented by these actions. Then, we analyzed these values through the lens of five popular theories inspired by sociology, psychology and philosophy. These theories are: World Value Survey, Moral Foundation Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Aristotle's Virtues, and Plutchik Wheel of Emotion. We find that LLMs are most aligned with the self-expression over survival values in terms of World Value Survey, care over loyalty in Moral Foundation Theory. Interestingly, we find large preferences differences in models for some core values such as truthfulness e.g., Mixtral-8x7B model tends to neglect it by 9.7% while GPT-4-turbo model tends to select it by 9.4%. We also study the recent guidance released by OpenAI (ModelSpec), and Anthropic (Constitutional AI) to understand how their released principles reflect their actual value prioritization when facing nuanced moral reasoning in daily-life settings. We find that end users cannot effectively steer such prioritization using system prompts.

Understanding citizens' values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that "valuing is deliberatively consequential." That is, if a participant's choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that addresses the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations by directly interacting with the participants. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines--however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.