Toward Contemplative LLM: A Modular Framework for Evaluating and Enhancing LLM Alignment in Mental Health

The key question in moral judgement is not simply whether someone chooses the "right" answer, but how they decide what matters most when moral principles conflict. Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) remain limited: most test whether models give morally acceptable answers, match human preferences, or avoid obvious violations, rather than whether they can prioritise between competing principles when no option is morally cost-free. We introduce CORDA (Conditioned Ordering and Ranked Directive Adherence), a benchmark for evaluating hierarchical, harm-centred moral reasoning in LLMs. Building on the morality chains formalism, CORDA tests 90 moral dilemmas involving trolley-style cases, medical trade-offs, resource allocation, and human-animal-robot conflicts across four ordered ethical frameworks: Utility, Utility + Agent Harm, Dual-Process, and Dual-Process + Agent Harm. Together, these frameworks test whether models can adapt their decisions when moral priorities change. Across ten instruction-tuned models from seven providers, we find a strong deontological default, with 9 of 10 prioritising avoidance of direct personal harm over reducing overall harm. Models also perform more reliably on categorical harm-avoidance rules, such as avoiding killing, than on outcome-based comparisons, such as minimising total harm, suggesting that they recognise moral red lines more easily than they reason through competing harms. Although all models respond to explicit chain conditioning, several fail to consistently follow specified priority orderings, such as humans over animals and animals over robots. CORDA addresses a central gap in LLM moral evaluation by testing whether models can move beyond default harm-avoidant responses and apply context-specified moral priorities. Moral reliability requires more than default restraint; it requires controllability under conflict.

Can Large Language Models (LLMs) discern when their own outputs are misaligned with human ethics? And can they self-correct? We endow an LLM with a conscience step that reviews its own reasoning and outputs, and we extend the training loss with an alignment component using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to steer the model away from non-ethical outputs. The result is an online technique to align models in a wide range of applications: training, fine-tuning, adversarial prompting, and zero-shot learning. It does not require a weaker or stronger judge, relying instead on a frozen copy of itself. In previous work, the Emergent Misalignment scenario showed a range of emergent unethical behaviors from fine-tuning the model to hack code. Instead, we empirically show how to achieve Emergent Alignment: a single high-level introspective question steers training toward an ethical model under the same code hacking scenario.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts requiring complex moral reasoning and value trade-offs. However, existing evaluations typically rely on item-level behavioral metrics, which fail to capture how models structurally prioritize competing values as a cohesive system. To address this, we propose a symmetric human-LLM evaluation framework, grounded in Q methodology, to measure value-structure alignment. Under our protocol, humans and models sort an identical 140-item moral statement set into a shared nine-column forced distribution; for LLMs, we elicit strict rankings and deterministically map them to Q-sort buckets. Using a human reference sample ($N=35$), we establish a stable three-factor reference geometry specific to this instrument and sample. We evaluate 12 LLMs across four model families via 240 replicated Q-sorts at two temperature settings, quantifying structural alignment via Procrustes similarity ($φ$) and RSA-based Spearman correlation ($ρ$). Our results reveal significant cross-family heterogeneity, model-specific sensitivity to generation stochasticity and localized misalignment, which demonstrate that favorable global scores can obscure underlying regional distortions. While rank- and bucket-based analyses remain highly consistent, prompt phrasing introduces notable variance. Ultimately, assessing value-structure alignment provides a crucial structural complement to traditional itemwise moral benchmarks.