Xing Xie

Yueqi Xie, Tao Qi, Jingwei Yi et al.

With the growing prevalence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.

Yan Liu, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xiaokang Chen et al.

The demand for regulating potentially risky behaviors of large language models (LLMs) has ignited research on alignment methods. Since LLM alignment heavily relies on reward models for optimization or evaluation, neglecting the quality of reward models may cause unreliable results or even misalignment. Despite the vital role reward models play in alignment, previous works have consistently overlooked their performance and used off-the-shelf reward models arbitrarily without verification, rendering the reward model ``\emph{an elephant in the room}''. To this end, this work first investigates the quality of the widely-used preference dataset, HH-RLHF, and curates a clean version, CHH-RLHF. Based on CHH-RLHF, we benchmark the accuracy of a broad range of reward models used in previous alignment works, unveiling the unreliability of using them both for optimization and evaluation. Furthermore, we systematically study the impact of reward model quality on alignment performance in three reward utilization paradigms. Extensive experiments reveal that better reward models perform as better human preference proxies. This work aims to awaken people to notice this huge elephant in alignment research. We call attention to the following issues: (1) The reward model needs to be rigorously evaluated, whether for alignment optimization or evaluation. (2) Considering the role of reward models, research efforts should not only concentrate on alignment algorithm, but also on developing more reliable human proxy.

Huanhuan Ma, Haisong Gong, Xiaoyuan Yi et al.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their increasing integration into human life. With the transition from mere tools to human-like assistants, understanding their psychological aspects-such as emotional tendencies and personalities-becomes essential for ensuring their trustworthiness. However, current psychological evaluations of LLMs, often based on human psychological assessments like the BFI, face significant limitations. The results from these approaches often lack reliability and have limited validity when predicting LLM behavior in real-world scenarios. In this work, we introduce a novel evaluation instrument specifically designed for LLMs, called Core Sentiment Inventory (CSI). CSI is a bilingual tool, covering both English and Chinese, that implicitly evaluates models' sentiment tendencies, providing an insightful psychological portrait of LLM across three dimensions: optimism, pessimism, and neutrality. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that: 1) CSI effectively captures nuanced emotional patterns, revealing significant variation in LLMs across languages and contexts; 2) Compared to current approaches, CSI significantly improves reliability, yielding more consistent results; and 3) The correlation between CSI scores and the sentiment of LLM's real-world outputs exceeds 0.85, demonstrating its strong validity in predicting LLM behavior. We make CSI public available via: https://github.com/dependentsign/CSI.

Eoin O'Doherty, Nicole Weinrauch, Andrew Talone et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing at a pace that raises urgent questions about how to align machine decision-making with human moral values. This working paper investigates how leading AI systems prioritize moral outcomes and what this reveals about the prospects for human-AI symbiosis. We address two central questions: (1) What moral values do state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) implicitly favour when confronted with dilemmas? (2) How do differences in model architecture, cultural origin, and explainability affect these moral preferences? To explore these questions, we conduct a quantitative experiment with six LLMs, ranking and scoring outcomes across 18 dilemmas representing five moral frameworks. Our findings uncover strikingly consistent value biases. Across all models, Care and Virtue values outcomes were rated most moral, while libertarian choices were consistently penalized. Reasoning-enabled models exhibited greater sensitivity to context and provided richer explanations, whereas non-reasoning models produced more uniform but opaque judgments. This research makes three contributions: (i) Empirically, it delivers a large-scale comparison of moral reasoning across culturally distinct LLMs; (ii) Theoretically, it links probabilistic model behaviour with underlying value encodings; (iii) Practically, it highlights the need for explainability and cultural awareness as critical design principles to guide AI toward a transparent, aligned, and symbiotic future.