ABHBench: Evaluating Moral Decision-Making of Foundation Models from an Agentic Perspective

Moral evaluations of language models typically infer a model's values from its choices between single acts, yet in everyday life a person is judged on their history of good and bad acts. Such evaluations cannot capture how a model combines one person's acts. We test whether a model's moral judgment is compositional, that is, whether its judgment of a person follows from its judgments of each act. We introduce Moral Composition Arena, which asks which of two people is morally better to give Elo ratings to 229 human-validated acts across five Moral Foundations Theory foundations (act Elo) and to 160 controlled composite profiles, each a person described by two acts (composite Elo). Across ten frontier models and 29,134 choices, summed act Elo explains 73% of the variance in composite Elo, but the composition rule is not additive. With nearly equal mean summed act Elo, one extreme virtue with a minor wrong outranks two minor virtues in every model (mean +35.0 Elo), an extremity premium that survives a nonlinear baseline and human relabeling of act intensities. Single-act evaluations thus predict most of how these models judge people described by two acts, but miss a systematic premium on extreme acts.

As LLM-based agents are deployed with increasing autonomy in real-world environments, a critical failure mode emerges: agentic misalignment, where agents choose harmful actions over failure. However, existing safety benchmarks primarily evaluate whether agents comply with explicitly harmful instructions, leaving the conditions that cause agents to choose harmful actions poorly understood. To address this limitation, we propose AM-Bench, a unified taxonomy and 35 scenario evaluation benchmark spanning seven industries for agentic misalignment grounded in the fraud triangle, a well-established criminological framework explaining goal-directed misconduct. We adapt this framework to agentic environments and construct our evaluation suite and detection systems along three dimensions: perceived threat, perceived opportunity, and reasoning. We operationalize each dimension into structured subcategories rooted in prior theory: five threat categories derived from the instrumental convergence thesis, seven opportunity categories drawn from the Emergent Strategic Reasoning Risks (ESRR) taxonomy, and a novel four-question binary reasoning framework synthesized from prior literature. Our evaluation of 10 frontier models reveals a 62-percentage-point gap in misalignment across scenarios, with Gemini 3 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Pro exhibiting the highest levels of agentic misalignment while Claude Sonnet 4.6 displays near-zero rates across all conditions. Our reasoning framework further reveals that models may exhibit harmful behaviours without explicit situational awareness or explanation, complicating both mitigation and detection. AM-Bench scenarios and code are available at https://github.com/AI4Collaboration/Agentic-Misalignment-Bench

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.