Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

C3AI: Crafting and Evaluating Constitutions for Constitutional AI

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.15861 v1 pith:56ZEYC4I submitted 2025-02-21 cs.AI cs.CL

C3AI: Crafting and Evaluating Constitutions for Constitutional AI

classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords principlesconstitutionsframedalignmentc3aicraftingevaluatingmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Constitutional AI (CAI) guides LLM behavior using constitutions, but identifying which principles are most effective for model alignment remains an open challenge. We introduce the C3AI framework (\textit{Crafting Constitutions for CAI models}), which serves two key functions: (1) selecting and structuring principles to form effective constitutions before fine-tuning; and (2) evaluating whether fine-tuned CAI models follow these principles in practice. By analyzing principles from AI and psychology, we found that positively framed, behavior-based principles align more closely with human preferences than negatively framed or trait-based principles. In a safety alignment use case, we applied a graph-based principle selection method to refine an existing CAI constitution, improving safety measures while maintaining strong general reasoning capabilities. Interestingly, fine-tuned CAI models performed well on negatively framed principles but struggled with positively framed ones, in contrast to our human alignment results. This highlights a potential gap between principle design and model adherence. Overall, C3AI provides a structured and scalable approach to both crafting and evaluating CAI constitutions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    Prompt-based legal canons and iterative rule refinement reduce disagreement among LLM judges about whether a response complies with natural-language rules.