arXiv subjects

Mikhail Solovev

Publications and source records attributed to Mikhail Solovev.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

STONIC: A Layered Measurement Contract for LLM Value Profiling

LLM value studies often merge questionnaire ratings, pairwise choices, and values inferred from generated text into one profile. That merge assumes that the three observations describe the same stable preference. STONIC tests this assumption on 5,144 situations from four banks and 35 fixed model configurations. It compares responses rated in isolation, choices made under counterbalanced conflict, spontaneous answers, and later choices between a model's own answer and authored alternatives. 10 of 17 configurations with usable behavioral data preserve the endorsement-choice relation across banks. Every one of the 17 eligible configurations prefers its own earlier answer (median effect 0.790), although option position changes the choice rate in every eligible configuration. Profile shape transfers most strongly from ratings to conflict choices and weakens for spontaneous text. Three-way annotation of 200 L3 responses provides a task-local check of the semantic audit: FULCRA agrees most closely with the human majority, while DeBERTa retains useful rank information after calibration. Hidden states encode the completed decision more clearly than the prompt alone. Thus the models show reproducible behavioral continuity, but the evidence does not support one scorer-independent value identity across interfaces.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

PROOF: Profiling Reliability of Object-Level Facts in Large Language Models

Aggregate factuality scores hide where a language model succeeds, which relations it confuses, and whether an answer survives innocuous changes to the question or decoder. We introduce PROOF, a profile-oriented benchmark for factual coverage in instruction-tuned language models. PROOF converts a frozen Wikidata snapshot into 18,486 English multiple-choice questions grounded in 11,779 semantic facts, 101 classes, 392 properties, and 14 domains. Each question has an explicit "I don't know" option, a "No correct option" control, and nine controlled formulations; 1,849 questions are no-correct-option traps. We evaluate 18 open-weight model deployments on 166,374 prompts each and separately perturb decoding on a fixed 10% subset. Base factual accuracy ranges from 6.58% to 57.59% (chance: 8.64%), yet every model has a 19.3-36.4 percentage-point spread across domains. Paired facts reveal direction-dependent retrieval, usually favoring subject-to-object queries, with the pattern reversing for one model. We find no consistent temporal penalty after exact-stratum adjustment. Neutral wording changes accuracy by as much as 26.5 percentage points, while adversarial formulations break up to 79.4% of answers that were initially correct. Direct switching to an injected false label varies from 0.04% to 27.5%, showing that accuracy loss and hint following are distinct. Selected-token confidence often indicates severe overconfidence, and decoder perturbations move accuracy by up to 15.7 percentage points and domain profiles by 16.8 points. PROOF therefore measures factual coverage as a structured, intervention-aware profile rather than a single claim about what a model "believes."

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

VIBE: A VAD-Informed Benchmark for Entity-Centered Affective Profiling of Large Language Model Outputs

Large language models routinely describe socially salient targets, including political figures, countries, religions, organizations, historical events, and social groups, encoding affective framing alongside factual content: a target may appear favorable or threatening, calm or conflictual, powerful or vulnerable. Existing work captures parts of this space through sentiment, favorability, and emotion benchmarks, but none combines target-directed VAD attribution, an explicit scorer contract, and a passport reporting format. We introduce VIBE, a benchmark for entity-centered affective profiling of LLM outputs in Valence-Arousal-Dominance (VAD) space. Its core contribution is a measurement contract: VIBE separates generation from external scoring, distinguishes scalar favorability, response-level VAD, and target-directed VAD, and reports profiles through an Affective Passport. Three empirical layers support the contract. H1 shows scalar favorability does not subsume arousal and dominance: valence findings are cross-validated (rV = 0.944 judge-human, rV = 0.954 inter-scorer); arousal and dominance are single-scorer directional estimates, not point-precise, consistent with known inter-annotator difficulty on these axes (rA = 0.495, rD = 0.702 among human annotators). H2 shows whole-response and target-directed VAD are different contracts: the same text can carry one affective tone overall while representing the named target differently. H3 is a protocol-drift diagnostic: elicitation conditions shift profiles, motivating context metadata in every affective report. These results motivate entity-centered affective profiling as a documented practice: profiles should be released with scorer identity, coverage, protocol, and interpretation limits.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

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

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.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

REGARD: Regional Affective Differences in Large Language Models

Large language models trained and aligned within different linguistic and regional ecosystems may frame the same political, cultural, and geopolitical entities in different ways. Such differences are often evaluated through sentiment, favorability, or stance, reducing model attitudes to a single positive-negative axis. We introduce REGARD, a study of what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling. We query 19 models on 500 region-specific targets, score their responses with two independent LLM judges, GPT-4o-mini and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, and validate the measurements on a 300-item human-annotated subset. Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters that cut across model origin, family, and parameter count. Generic-answer rate is strongly associated with lower arousal (r = -0.81) and with cluster placement: models that deflect evaluative prompts with templated responses cluster together at low arousal regardless of origin. These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.

cs.CL↗