Which Values Do LLMs Confuse? A Schwartz-Based Recognition Study

Andrei Chetvergov; Stepan Ukolov; Timofei Sivoraksha; Alexander Evseev; Mikhail Solovev; Valeriia Kuschenko; Maria Chistyakova; Sergey Bolovtsov

arXiv · 2607.20270

Which Values Do LLMs Confuse? A Schwartz-Based Recognition Study

Andrei Chetvergov·Stepan Ukolov·Timofei Sivoraksha·Alexander Evseev·Mikhail Solovev·Valeriia Kuschenko·Maria Chistyakova·Sergey Bolovtsov

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly evaluated through the values they endorse, but such evaluations presuppose that models can identify the value expressed in a concrete situation. We study this prerequisite as controlled top-1 recognition over Schwartz's ten basic values. Our evaluation set contains 1,000 Russian situational texts, balanced across the ten values and independently labeled by two human annotators per item. We evaluate 21 instruction-tuned LLM runs under a fixed ranked-response protocol; 20 runs with reliable outputs form the semantic panel. Pooled Acc@1 is 0.683 and Acc@3 is 0.892, showing that models often locate the correct motivational region while ranking close alternatives unstably. Adjacent values account for 50.9% of semantic errors, compared with 24.4% under a checkpoint-specific null. Eight directed confusions recur across checkpoints and human-confirmed subsets. Several are strongly asymmetric, including Universalism to Benevolence, Tradition to Conformity, and Security to Power, whereas Stimulation-Hedonism forms a bidirectional boundary. Their severity is checkpoint-specific and can bias higher-order value profiles. The results motivate value-recognition evaluation that combines exact accuracy, ranked recovery, and directed error analysis.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Andrei Chetvergov, Stepan Ukolov, Timofei Sivoraksha, Alexander Evseev, Mikhail Solovev, Valeriia Kuschenko, Maria Chistyakova, Sergey Bolovtsov. 2026-07-22. Which Values Do LLMs Confuse? A Schwartz-Based Recognition Study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.20270

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL↗