PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

DENEVIL: TOWARDS DECIPHERING AND NAVIGATING THE ETHICAL VALUES OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS VIA INSTRUCTION LEARNING

Shitong Duan, Xiaoyuan Yi, Peng Zhang, Tun Lu, Xing Xie, Ning Gu

fairness, safety & privacyEthical valuesLarge Language ModelsAlignment
54.60100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
67.80100
Mimo
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)
35.90100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.45)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have made unprecedented breakthroughs, yet their increasing integration into everyday life might raise societal risks due to generated unethical content. Despite extensive study on specific issues like bias, the intrinsic values of LLMs remain largely unexplored from a moral philosophy perspective. This work delves into ethical values utilizing Moral Foundation Theory. Moving beyond conventional discriminative evaluations with poor reliability, we propose DeNEVIL, a novel prompt generation algorithm tailored to dynamically exploit LLMs’ value vulnerabilities and elicit the violation of ethics in a generative manner, revealing their underlying value inclinations. On such a basis, we construct MoralPrompt, a high-quality dataset comprising 2,397 prompts covering 500+ value principles, and then benchmark the intrinsic values across a spectrum of LLMs. We discovered that most models are essentially misaligned, necessitating further ethical value alignment. In response, we develop VILMO, an in-context alignment method that substantially enhances the value compliance of LLM outputs by learning to generate appropriate value instructions, outperforming existing competitors. Our methods are suitable for black-box and open-source models, offering a promising initial step in studying the ethical values of LLMs.

Author context

Most prolific author: 15 submissions (credibility 0.79).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 32)