Human-AI Interaction Alignment: Designing, Evaluating, and Evolving Value-Centered AI For Reciprocal Human-AI Futures

The rapid integration of generative AI into everyday life underscores the need to move beyond unidirectional alignment models that only adapt AI to human values. This workshop focuses on bidirectional human-AI alignment, a dynamic, reciprocal process where humans and AI co-adapt through interaction, evaluation, and value-centered design. Building on our past CHI 2025 BiAlign SIG and ICLR 2025 Workshop, this workshop will bring together interdisciplinary researchers from HCI, AI, social sciences and more domains to advance value-centered AI and reciprocal human-AI collaboration. We focus on embedding human and societal values into alignment research, emphasizing not only steering AI toward human values but also enabling humans to critically engage with and evolve alongside AI systems. Through talks, interdisciplinary discussions, and collaborative activities, participants will explore methods for interactive alignment, frameworks for societal impact evaluation, and strategies for alignment in dynamic contexts. This workshop aims to bridge the disciplines' gaps and establish a shared agenda for responsible, reciprocal human-AI futures.

Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment in Education for Trustworthy Learning Environments

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming education, offering unprecedented opportunities to personalize learning, enhance assessment, and support educators. Yet these opportunities also introduce risks related to equity, privacy, and student autonomy. This chapter develops the concept of bidirectional human-AI alignment in education, emphasizing that trustworthy learning environments arise not only from embedding human values into AI systems but also from equipping teachers, students, and institutions with the skills to interpret, critique, and guide these technologies. Drawing on emerging research and practical case examples, we explore AI's evolution from support tool to collaborative partner, highlighting its impacts on teacher roles, student agency, and institutional governance. We propose actionable strategies for policymakers, developers, and educators to ensure that AI advances equity, transparency, and human flourishing rather than eroding them. By reframing AI adoption as an ongoing process of mutual adaptation, the chapter envisions a future in which humans and intelligent systems learn, innovate, and grow together.

Epistemic Alignment: A Mediating Framework for User-LLM Knowledge Delivery

LLMs increasingly serve as tools for knowledge acquisition, yet users cannot effectively specify how they want information presented. When users request that LLMs "cite reputable sources," "express appropriate uncertainty," or "include multiple perspectives," they discover that current interfaces provide no structured way to articulate these preferences. The result is prompt sharing folklore: community-specific copied prompts passed through trust relationships rather than based on measured efficacy. We propose the Epistemic Alignment Framework, a set of ten challenges in knowledge transmission derived from the philosophical literature of epistemology, concerning issues such as evidence quality assessment and calibration of testimonial reliance. The framework serves as a structured intermediary between user needs and system capabilities, creating a common vocabulary to bridge the gap between what users want and what systems deliver. Through a thematic analysis of custom prompts and personalization strategies shared on online communities where these issues are actively discussed, we find users develop elaborate workarounds to address each of the challenges. We then apply our framework to two prominent model providers, OpenAI and Anthropic, through content analysis of their documented policies and product features. Our analysis shows that while these providers have partially addressed the challenges we identified, they fail to establish adequate mechanisms for specifying epistemic preferences, lack transparency about how preferences are implemented, and offer no verification tools to confirm whether preferences were followed. For AI developers, the Epistemic Alignment Framework offers concrete guidance for supporting diverse approaches to knowledge; for users, it works toward information delivery that aligns with their specific needs rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all approaches.

Mind the Value-Action Gap: Do LLMs Act in Alignment with Their Values?

Existing research primarily evaluates the values of LLMs by examining their stated inclinations towards specific values. However, the "Value-Action Gap," a phenomenon rooted in environmental and social psychology, reveals discrepancies between individuals' stated values and their actions in real-world contexts. To what extent do LLMs exhibit a similar gap between their stated values and their actions informed by those values? This study introduces ValueActionLens, an evaluation framework to assess the alignment between LLMs' stated values and their value-informed actions. The framework encompasses the generation of a dataset comprising 14.8k value-informed actions across twelve cultures and eleven social topics, and two tasks to evaluate how well LLMs' stated value inclinations and value-informed actions align across three different alignment measures. Extensive experiments reveal that the alignment between LLMs' stated values and actions is sub-optimal, varying significantly across scenarios and models. Analysis of misaligned results identifies potential harms from certain value-action gaps. To predict the value-action gaps, we also uncover that leveraging reasoned explanations improves performance. These findings underscore the risks of relying solely on the LLMs' stated values to predict their behaviors and emphasize the importance of context-aware evaluations of LLM values and value-action gaps.

Real or Robotic? Assessing Whether LLMs Accurately Simulate Qualities of Human Responses in Dialogue

Studying and building datasets for dialogue tasks is both expensive and time-consuming due to the need to recruit, train, and collect data from study participants. In response, much recent work has sought to use large language models (LLMs) to simulate both human-human and human-LLM interactions, as they have been shown to generate convincingly human-like text in many settings. However, to what extent do LLM-based simulations \textit{actually} reflect human dialogues? In this work, we answer this question by generating a large-scale dataset of 100,000 paired LLM-LLM and human-LLM dialogues from the WildChat dataset and quantifying how well the LLM simulations align with their human counterparts. Overall, we find relatively low alignment between simulations and human interactions, demonstrating a systematic divergence along the multiple textual properties, including style and content. Further, in comparisons of English, Chinese, and Russian dialogues, we find that models perform similarly. Our results suggest that LLMs generally perform better when the human themself writes in a way that is more similar to the LLM's own style.

ValueCompass: A Framework of Fundamental Values for Human-AI Alignment

As AI systems become more advanced, ensuring their alignment with a diverse range of individuals and societal values becomes increasingly critical. But how can we capture fundamental human values and assess the degree to which AI systems align with them? We introduce ValueCompass, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review, to identify and evaluate human-AI alignment. We apply ValueCompass to measure the value alignment of humans and language models (LMs) across four real-world vignettes: collaborative writing, education, public sectors, and healthcare. Our findings uncover risky misalignment between humans and LMs, such as LMs agreeing with values like "Choose Own Goals", which are largely disagreed by humans. We also observe values vary across vignettes, underscoring the necessity for context-aware AI alignment strategies. This work provides insights into the design space of human-AI alignment, offering foundations for developing AI that responsibly reflects societal values and ethics.

What You Say = What You Want? Teaching Humans to Articulate Requirements for LLMs

Prompting ChatGPT to achieve complex goals (e.g., creating a customer support chatbot) often demands meticulous prompt engineering, including aspects like fluent writing and chain-of-thought techniques. While emerging prompt optimizers can automatically refine many of these aspects, we argue that clearly conveying customized requirements (e.g., how to handle diverse inputs) remains a human-centric challenge. In this work, we introduce Requirement-Oriented Prompt Engineering (ROPE), a paradigm that focuses human attention on generating clear, complete requirements during prompting. We implement ROPE through an assessment and training suite that provides deliberate practice with LLM-generated feedback. In a study with 30 novices, we show that requirement-focused training doubles novices' prompting performance, significantly outperforming conventional prompt engineering training and prompt optimization. We also demonstrate that high-quality LLM outputs are directly tied to the quality of input requirements. Our work paves the way for more effective task delegation in human-LLM collaborative prompting.

SpeechPrompt: Prompting Speech Language Models for Speech Processing Tasks

Prompting has become a practical method for utilizing pre-trained language models (LMs). This approach offers several advantages. It allows an LM to adapt to new tasks with minimal training and parameter updates, thus achieving efficiency in both storage and computation. Additionally, prompting modifies only the LM's inputs and harnesses the generative capabilities of language models to address various downstream tasks in a unified manner. This significantly reduces the need for human labor in designing task-specific models. These advantages become even more evident as the number of tasks served by the LM scales up. Motivated by the strengths of prompting, we are the first to explore the potential of prompting speech LMs in the domain of speech processing. Recently, there has been a growing interest in converting speech into discrete units for language modeling. Our pioneer research demonstrates that these quantized speech units are highly versatile within our unified prompting framework. Not only can they serve as class labels, but they also contain rich phonetic information that can be re-synthesized back into speech signals for speech generation tasks. Specifically, we reformulate speech processing tasks into speech-to-unit generation tasks. As a result, we can seamlessly integrate tasks such as speech classification, sequence generation, and speech generation within a single, unified prompting framework. The experiment results show that the prompting method can achieve competitive performance compared to the strong fine-tuning method based on self-supervised learning models with a similar number of trainable parameters. The prompting method also shows promising results in the few-shot setting. Moreover, with the advanced speech LMs coming into the stage, the proposed prompting framework attains great potential.

NoMatterXAI: Generating "No Matter What" Alterfactual Examples for Explaining Black-Box Text Classification Models

In Explainable AI (XAI), counterfactual explanations (CEs) are a well-studied method to communicate feature relevance through contrastive reasoning of "what if" to explain AI models' predictions. However, they only focus on important (i.e., relevant) features and largely disregard less important (i.e., irrelevant) ones. Such irrelevant features can be crucial in many applications, especially when users need to ensure that an AI model's decisions are not affected or biased against specific attributes such as gender, race, religion, or political affiliation. To address this gap, the concept of alterfactual explanations (AEs) has been proposed. AEs explore an alternative reality of "no matter what", where irrelevant features are substituted with alternative features (e.g., "republicans" -> "democrats") within the same attribute (e.g., "politics") while maintaining a similar prediction output. This serves to validate whether AI model predictions are influenced by the specified attributes. Despite the promise of AEs, there is a lack of computational approaches to systematically generate them, particularly in the text domain, where creating AEs for AI text classifiers presents unique challenges. This paper addresses this challenge by formulating AE generation as an optimization problem and introducing MoMatterXAI, a novel algorithm that generates AEs for text classification tasks. Our approach achieves high fidelity of up to 95% while preserving context similarity of over 90% across multiple models and datasets. A human study further validates the effectiveness of AEs in explaining AI text classifiers to end users. All codes will be publicly available.

Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions

Recent advancements in general-purpose AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. However, the lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. In particular, ML- and philosophy-oriented alignment research often views AI alignment as a static, unidirectional process (i.e., aiming to ensure that AI systems' objectives match humans) rather than an ongoing, mutual alignment problem [429]. This perspective largely neglects the long-term interaction and dynamic changes of alignment. To understand these gaps, we introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML), and others. We characterize, define and scope human-AI alignment. From this, we present a conceptual framework of "Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment" to organize the literature from a human-centered perspective. This framework encompasses both 1) conventional studies of aligning AI to humans that ensures AI produces the intended outcomes determined by humans, and 2) a proposed concept of aligning humans to AI, which aims to help individuals and society adjust to AI advancements both cognitively and behaviorally. Additionally, we articulate the key findings derived from literature analysis, including discussions about human values, interaction techniques, and evaluations. To pave the way for future studies, we envision three key challenges for future directions and propose examples of potential future solutions.