Do Language Models Think Consistently? A Study of Value Preferences Across Varying Response Lengths
Inderjeet Nair, Lu Wang

TL;DR
This study investigates whether large language models' value preferences are consistent across short and long responses, revealing weak correlations and highlighting the need for better methods to ensure consistent value expression.
Contribution
It provides the first systematic comparison of value preferences in LLMs between short-form and long-form responses across multiple models and settings.
Findings
Weak correlation between short and long-form value preferences
Weak correlation across different long-form generation settings
Argument specificity negatively impacts preference strength
Abstract
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsComputational and Text Analysis Methods
MethodsALIGN
