arXiv subjects

Paul de Font-Reaulx

Publications and source records attributed to Paul de Font-Reaulx.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Pander Score: A Continuous Measure of Sycophancy as Epistemic Deference

Current AI models frequently exhibit epistemic sycophancy, endorsing claims to agree with a user. Existing evaluations typically measure this either by assessing what it takes to make a model shift a binary endorsement or by eliciting an explicit probability in a proposition. However, much user-facing sycophantic behavior is demonstrated through shifts in graded support expressed through ordinary language. We propose the Pander Score: a continuous score representing how sensitive the support expressed in a model's output is to the attitude expressed in a user's prompt. To generate the Pander Score, we provide a new protocol for estimating probabilities from natural language outputs, using LLMs-as-judges validated for consistency and correlation to human judgment. We deploy it on a new curated dataset of 349 propositions across diverse topics and over 11,000 prompts varying in user attitude, testing 18 models. Models pander to sharply different degrees. Among current flagship models, Z.ai's GLM-5.2 panders the most and Claude Fable 5 the least, with other models in between. When we run the test on instructional rather than conversational prompts, every model becomes substantially more likely to go along with claims they would push back against in conversation. We release the Pander Score as an easy-to-update benchmark and measurement pipeline for output-level sycophancy evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes

As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us. To ensure that such decisions are aligned with human values, it is imperative for us to understand not only what decisions they make but also how they come to those decisions. Reasoning language models, which provide both final responses and (partially transparent) intermediate thinking traces, present a timely opportunity to study AI procedural reasoning. Unlike math and code problems which often have objectively correct answers, moral dilemmas are an excellent testbed for process-focused evaluation because they allow for multiple defensible conclusions. To do so, we present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of rubric criteria that experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios. MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations to cover cases on AI advising humans moral decisions as well as making moral decisions autonomously. Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics. Our results show that scaling laws and existing benchmarks on math, code, and scientific reasoning tasks fail to predict models' abilities to perform moral reasoning. Models also show partiality towards specific moral frameworks (e.g., Benthamite Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology), which might be side effects of popular training paradigms. Together, these benchmarks advance process-focused reasoning evaluation towards safer and more transparent AI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Prioritization of Risks from Artificial Intelligence: A Delphi Study of 272 International Experts

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

DeliberationBench: A Normative Benchmark for the Influence of Large Language Models on Users' Views

As large language models (LLMs) become pervasive as assistants and thought partners, it is important to characterize their persuasive influence on users' beliefs. However, a central challenge is to distinguish "beneficial" from "harmful" forms of influence, in a manner that is normatively defensible and legitimate. We propose DeliberationBench, a benchmark for assessing LLM influence that takes the process of deliberative opinion polling as its standard. We demonstrate our approach in a preregistered randomized experiment in which 4,088 U.S. participants discussed 65 policy proposals with six frontier LLMs. Using opinion change data from four prior Deliberative Polls conducted by the Deliberative Democracy Lab, we find evidence that the tested LLMs' influence is substantial in magnitude and positively associated with the net opinion shifts following deliberation, suggesting that these models exert broadly epistemically desirable effects. We further explore differential influence between topic areas, demographic subgroups, and models. Our framework can function as an evaluation and monitoring tool, helping to ensure that the influence of LLMs remains consistent with democratically legitimate standards, and preserves users' autonomy in forming their views.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Machine Theory of Mind and the Structure of Human Values

Value learning is a crucial aspect of safe and ethical AI. This is primarily pursued by methods inferring human values from behaviour. However, humans care about much more than we are able to demonstrate through our actions. Consequently, an AI must predict the rest of our seemingly complex values from a limited sample. I call this the value generalization problem. In this paper, I argue that human values have a generative rational structure and that this allows us to solve the value generalization problem. In particular, we can use Bayesian Theory of Mind models to infer human values not only from behaviour, but also from other values. This has been obscured by the widespread use of simple utility functions to represent human values. I conclude that developing generative value-to-value inference is a crucial component of achieving a scalable machine theory of mind.

cs.AI↗