Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Do Schwartz Higher-Order Values Help Sentence-Level Human Value Detection? A Study of Hierarchical Gating and Calibration

Víctor Yeste, Paolo Rosso · Jan 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task. We study whether Schwartz higher-order (HO) categories help this setting on ValueEval'24 / ValuesML (74K English sentences) under a compute-frugal budget. Rather than proposing a new architecture, we compare direct supervised transformers, hard HO$\rightarrow$values pipelines, Presence$\rightarrow$HO$\rightarrow$values cascades, compact instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs), QLoRA, and low-cost upgrades such as threshold tuning and small ensembles. HO categories are learnable: the easiest bipolar pair, Growth vs. Self-Protection, reaches Macro-$F_1=0.58$. The most reliable gains come from calibration and ensembling: threshold tuning improves Social Focus vs. Personal Focus from $0.41$ to $0.57$ ($+0.16$), transformer soft voting lifts Growth from $0.286$ to $0.303$, and a Transformer+LLM hybrid reaches $0.353$ on Self-Protection. In contrast, hard hierarchical gating does not consistently improve the end task. Compact LLMs also underperform supervised encoders as stand-alone systems, although they sometimes add useful diversity in hybrid ensembles. Under this benchmark, the HO structure is more useful as an inductive bias than as a rigid routing rule.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 55%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task."

Quality Controls

strong

Calibration

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"The most reliable gains come from calibration and ensembling: threshold tuning improves Social Focus vs."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Valueeval

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"We study whether Schwartz higher-order (HO) categories help this setting on ValueEval'24 / ValuesML (74K English sentences) under a compute-frugal budget."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Calibration
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Valueeval

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task.
  • We study whether Schwartz higher-order (HO) categories help this setting on ValueEval'24 / ValuesML (74K English sentences) under a compute-frugal budget.
  • Rather than proposing a new architecture, we compare direct supervised transformers, hard HO$\rightarrow$values pipelines, Presence$\rightarrow$HO$\rightarrow$values cascades, compact instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs), QLoRA, and low-cost upgrades such as threshold tuning and small ensembles.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Calibration

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task.
  • Under this benchmark, the HO structure is more useful as an inductive bias than as a rigid routing rule.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Human value detection from single sentences is a sparse, imbalanced multi-label task.
  • Under this benchmark, the HO structure is more useful as an inductive bias than as a rigid routing rule.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Pass: Quality control reporting appears

    Detected: Calibration

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Valueeval

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now