Mu‐Hua Huang

Muhua Huang, Qinlin Zhao, Xiaoyuan Yi et al.

As Large Language Models (LLM) based multi-agent systems become increasingly prevalent, the collective behaviors, e.g., collective intelligence, of such artificial communities have drawn growing attention. This work aims to answer a fundamental question: How does diversity of values shape the collective behavior of AI communities? Using naturalistic value elicitation grounded in the prevalent Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values, we constructed multi-agent simulations where communities with varying numbers of agents engaged in open-ended interactions and constitution formation. The results show that value diversity enhances value stability, fosters emergent behaviors, and brings more creative principles developed by the agents themselves without external guidance. However, these effects also show diminishing returns: extreme heterogeneity induces instability. This work positions value diversity as a new axis of future AI capability, bridging AI ability and sociological studies of institutional emergence.

Jing Yao, Xiaoyuan Yi, Shitong Duan et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs, aligning their values with humans has become imperative for their responsible development and customized applications. However, there still lack evaluations of LLMs values that fulfill three desirable goals. (1) Value Clarification: We expect to clarify the underlying values of LLMs precisely and comprehensively, while current evaluations focus narrowly on safety risks such as bias and toxicity. (2) Evaluation Validity: Existing static, open-source benchmarks are prone to data contamination and quickly become obsolete as LLMs evolve. Additionally, these discriminative evaluations uncover LLMs' knowledge about values, rather than valid assessments of LLMs' behavioral conformity to values. (3) Value Pluralism: The pluralistic nature of human values across individuals and cultures is largely ignored in measuring LLMs value alignment. To address these challenges, we presents the Value Compass Benchmarks, with three correspondingly designed modules. It (i) grounds the evaluation on motivationally distinct \textit{basic values to clarify LLMs' underlying values from a holistic view; (ii) applies a \textit{generative evolving evaluation framework with adaptive test items for evolving LLMs and direct value recognition from behaviors in realistic scenarios; (iii) propose a metric that quantifies LLMs alignment with a specific value as a weighted sum over multiple dimensions, with weights determined by pluralistic values.

Muhua Huang, Xijuan Zhang, Christopher Soto et al.

We introduce a methodology for assigning quantifiable and psychometrically validated personalities to AI-Agents using the Big Five framework. Across three studies, we evaluate its feasibility and limitations. In Study 1, we show that large language models (LLMs) capture semantic similarities among Big Five measures, providing a basis for personality assignment. In Study 2, we create AI-Agents using prompts designed based on the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) in different format, and find that AI-Agents powered by new models align more closely with human responses on the Mini-Markers test, although the finer pattern of results (e.g., factor loading patterns) were sometimes inconsistent. In Study 3, we validate our AI-Agents on risk-taking and moral dilemma vignettes, finding that models prompted with the BFI-2-Expanded format most closely reproduce human personality-decision associations, while safety-aligned models generally inflate 'moral' ratings. Overall, our results show that AI-Agents align with humans in correlations between input Big Five traits and output responses and may serve as useful tools for preliminary research. Nevertheless, discrepancies in finer response patterns indicate that AI-Agents cannot (yet) fully substitute for human participants in precision or high-stakes projects.