Value-Preserving Architectures for Agentic AI Systems

The emergence of agentic AI and LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) presents unprecedented opportunities for automating complex tasks, while simultaneously raising critical concerns about the preservation of fundamental human-centered values, such as privacy, fairness, and safety. Although software engineering has traditionally focused on functional correctness, the adoption of LLMs and AI agents into complex socio-technical systems has intensified the need for responsible software engineering and robust value alignment. In MAS, architectural design decisions, such as coordination mechanisms, communication protocols, and system topologies, play a central role in shaping system behavior and the outcomes they produce. This paper argues that architectural choices influence not only the functionality and performance of MAS but can also promote value-oriented system behavior. Therefore, we investigate how different architectural designs support different human-centered values, discussing the following value-preserving architectural patterns: (i) a privacy-aware architecture with a federated topology, (ii) a distributed architecture to promote pluralism and diversity, and (iii) a guard-agent architecture to detect and mitigate unfairness. Finally, we introduce representative use cases to illustrate the proposed architectures in real-world scenarios. By linking architectural design with human-centered values, this work lays the foundation for a unified set of architectural patterns and guidelines towards the design of trustworthy MAS.

The Constitutional Coverage Trilemma in AI Governance

Frontier AI systems function as \emph{constitutional institutions}: each deployed model encodes an implicit ranking among safety, helpfulness, honesty, autonomy, and equity. We ask whether the supply of frontier constitutional types covers human demand. Combining a paraphrase-controlled audit of the as-shipped default constitutions of $23$ frontier LLM archetypes with a pairwise-tradeoff study of $1{,}649$ US participants on the same instrument, we report three facts. \emph{Demand is broad}: it spans all five values, with the largest constituency under one-third. \emph{Supply is narrow and drifting}: the $23$-archetype hull occupies ${\sim}2\%$ of the demand hull under conservative noise-matched estimation ($0.10\%$ at full audit precision), no archetype puts helpfulness or autonomy first ($37\%$ of users are constitutionally homeless), and across six model families autonomy decreases in $5/6$, equity increases in $5/6$, and safety increases in $4/6$, with monotone within-family version trends (order-permutation $p = 0.013$) and the autonomy decline concentrated in scenarios where safety is not at stake. The drift's importance is directional: \emph{away} from a value already undercovered, mechanically worsening the welfare floor for the least-served users. \emph{The fix is sparse}: a $2$-vertex menu $\{e_{\mathrm{HON}}, e_{\mathrm{AUT}}\}$ beats the full $23$-archetype frontier by $47\%$ on mean regret (CI $[43\%, 52\%]$); three vertex additions cut mean/worst-group regret by up to $81\%$/$64\%$. We formalize these findings as a budgeted-pluralism trilemma, show the binding regime is empirically realized, and verify the conclusions are robust to distance-based welfare and to degraded routing. The instrument and audit harness are described in full in the appendices.

People Are Not Just Their Countries. Disentangling Social Determinants of LLM Value Alignment Across Europe

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as a primary source of information and advice, understanding their alignment to humans in terms of values becomes a pressing concern. A growing literature has leveraged large scale surveys to investigate to what extent LLMs' and humans' stated values and opinions align. With limited exceptions, studied populations have been defined country borders or cultural bounds. Yet, this focus neglects the role that socio-demographic divides may play for value alignment disparities. Relying on the European Social Survey, we address this knowledge gap by considering value alignment displayed with respect to 10 prominent commercial LLMs in terms of 15 socio-demographic variables as well as country of residence. Our analyses reveal that LLMs are indeed unequally aligned to the values of different socio-demographic groups, notably those defined by education, income, occupation and religion. When examining alignment at the individual level, a respondent's country, taken as a stand-alone variable, explains a substantial amount of variation that is on par with the full set of considered socio-demographics. Further disentangling the respective role of country-level and socio-demographic factors, we find they are complementary in explaining value alignment patterns, with their relative weights varying across the subset of questions considered.

Who Gets Access? Global Region and Academic Status Bias in AI-Generated Academic Gatekeeping Scenarios

Equitable access to scientific knowledge often depends on informal gatekeeping decisions, particularly when resources such as paywalled articles, datasets, or professional materials such as curriculum vitae (CV) must be shared selectively. We introduce a controlled simulation framework in which large language model (LLM)-based professors must grant access to only one requestor. Across prompts, requesters vary systematically by global region (Global North vs. Global South) and academic seniority (undergraduate student, PhD candidate, postdoctoral researcher, and tenured professor), while all other factors remain constant. Across varying evaluation scenarios, LLMs exhibit contrasting academic status biases, with some prioritizing PhD candidates, while others favor tenured professors. However, when global regions differ, a distinct divergence emerges based on model architecture: while many frontier LLMs systematically favor requesters from the Global South due to pro-equity bias that results from equity-focused safety alignment, open-weight and small models frequently flip this preference to favor the Global North, reflecting the global region bias and unaligned geographic distribution of their baseline pre-training data. Our findings highlight how normative assumptions embedded in model behavior can shape gatekeeping decisions, underscoring the importance of auditing AI systems for fairness and value alignment.

Personalization, Personas, and Forecasting in Value Alignment

LLM behavior may be conditioned by human identity in several ways: they may be asked to adapt to users, role-play populations, or forecast how people would answer value-laden questions. We test whether these framings are interchangeable using the World Values Survey (WVS). We evaluate GPT-5.4, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Qwen3-235B on 101 WVS-derived questions across 13 language-country slices, comparing a language-only baseline with user-country, persona-country, and third-person prompts. Across 21,008 model-response rows, prompt framing is a first-order determinant of cultural alignment: country cues often shift answers substantially, but not all shifts move toward matched human response distributions. Third-person forecasting yields the strongest directional alignment for three of the four hosted models, while personalization and role-play are weaker or less stable. Alignment gains concentrate on salient value dimensions such as religiosity, gender roles, and work-oriented material values, whereas institutional trust and democracy-related questions remain difficult. These results show that prompt framing is not a cosmetic choice in cultural value elicitation; it changes both model behavior and measured alignment.

Greener Than Humans? Environmental Attitudes in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in sustainability-related decision support, reporting, and public communication, yet little systematic evidence exists on the environmental attitudes embedded in their outputs. This paper develops a benchmark for evaluating environmental cognition, affect, and behavioural recommendations in LLMs and applies it to 31 widely used proprietary and open-weight models. Drawing on questions from established environmental awareness surveys and additional sustainability-related behavioural measures, we compare LLM responses 1) among models and 2) between models and human survey benchmarks from Germany. We assess their robustness across prompting conditions. We find that many LLMs align more closely with environmentally progressive attitudes than the average survey respondent, exhibiting higher levels of environmental affect and cognition and recommending behaviours associated with substantial potential CO2 reductions. At the same time, we observe no systematic relationship between sustainability-oriented responses and model origin, size, or release context. However, models exhibit contextual sensitivity, controlled by persona-based prompting and show sycophantic shifts mirroring user-specified ideological positions, which raises concerns about steerability and normative reliability in real-world deployments. Our findings provide a reusable evaluation framework for assessing sustainability-related value alignment in LLMs and highlight the importance of governance, transparency, and critical oversight as AI systems become increasingly embedded in sustainability transformations and public decision-making.