Moral Reasoning

The evaluation of cultural grounding context becomes complex when multiple cultures convey the same moral lesson. This challenge is particularly relevant to large language models (LLMs), which produce narratives across a wide range of languages and cultural contexts. However, it remains uncertain whether these models preserve culturally grounded meaning when equivalent moral lessons are conveyed through distinct cultural forms. This study introduces a multilingual evaluation narrative framework that integrates a cross-linguistic collection of 414 proverbs spanning 15 languages and uses four LLMs to generate 13k narratives. By employing semantically equivalent proverbs as culturally grounded prompts, the analysis assesses whether models preserve meaning across languages, how cross-lingual conditioning influences narrative realization, and whether different model families converge on similar interpretations. Results indicate that cross-lingual prompting largely preserves proverb-level semantic meaning while systematically redistributing agency, social positioning, and narrative structure. Additionally, strong inter-model convergence is observed in both monolingual and cross-lingual settings, suggesting that multilingual LLMs rely on shared semantic abstractions despite architectural and linguistic differences. These findings shed light on the need for more comprehensive evaluations of cultural grounding. Relying exclusively on semantic similarity in multilingual narrative assessments may overestimate cultural preservation by neglecting culturally meaningful variations in narrative expression.

ODRL policy evaluators produce verdicts, but say nothing about the normative positions a policy brings into existence, the authority structures those positions presuppose, or who holds the power to declare a norm violated. We formulate the Cross-Level Design Principle: any normative language with violable, consequential norms requires both conduct-level positions (Permission, Duty, Right, No right) and competence-level positions (Power, Subjection, Immunity, Disability). Applying this to ODRL, we establish that prohibition is sanctioned (violation possible and consequential), that permission is underspecified across its behaviour parameter (open vs. closed world), and that the formal semantics covers achievement obligations only. We ground ODRL in UFO-L, mapping each activated rule to a simple legal relator and extending coverage from two to eight legal positions; violation-declaration authority, implicit in every existing evaluator, becomes an explicit Power-Subjection pair. All axioms are mechanically verified in Isabelle/HOL and across a 39-problem benchmark under Vampire, E, and Z3.

Many information systems are built around documents: self-contained units optimised for print production and linear reading. While effective for large-scale dissemination, the document-centric organisation constrains how knowledge can be structured, updated, shared, and reused. Formal approaches address some of these limitations but struggle to achieve widespread contribution and adoption due to their prioritisation of formal structure over other system properties such as human usability and scope. AI systems are reshaping document production, but without providing a unified portable alternative to traditional documents for humans' expression and exchange of knowledge. This paper presents MMM, a data model for knowledge documentation that emerged from the practical needs of interdisciplinary collaborative research, and positioned here within a comparative analysis of the design space of information systems. MMM combines a small set of normative constraints with the expressive freedom of free-text labels. It is designed for interoperability across disciplines, applications and deployments without requiring semantic convergence. A reference implementation and pilot deployment data demonstrate implementability and early usability.

Fei Xiaotong's Differential Order Pattern characterizes rural society as egocentric and relationally graded, with cooperation attenuating over social distance. Although often treated as culturally specific, its mechanistic basis remains under-operationalized, and prior LLM-based simulations have mainly addressed short-term coordination rather than long-horizon social structure. We propose CAREB-MAS, a multi-agent framework grounded in Affect Control Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Durkheimian collective affect. Agents reason through an emotion-ethics-belief chain and maintain dynamically evolving egocentric identities, while the macro environment specifies only individual production, preference-based allocation, and minimal interaction protocols. Across long-horizon simulations, agents spontaneously reproduce five core Differential Order phenomena: stable labor specialization, guanxi-based economic ethics, relational decay of cooperation, emergent relational authority, and clan-based center-periphery stratification. These patterns shift with production structure from kin-centered integration toward greater functional interdependence. Extensive experiment results support interpreting Differential Order as a structure-sensitive emergent outcome of general social mechanisms, with LLM-based multi-agent simulation providing an interdisciplinary framework for studying social structure and change.

Understanding moral values in social media text offers insight into moral judgement formation, and supervised NLP models trained on crowdsourced data have achieved strong classification performance. However, most approaches simplify the problem by aggregating multiple annotators' labels into a single "ground truth", overlooking the inherent subjectivity of the task. In practice, there are disagreements between annotators caused by personal viewpoint or inherent ambiguities, particularly for short tweets. Here, we extend a pretrained language model with a layer that learns annotator-specific features. Our model improves predictions of individual annotations and yields representations that reveal meaningful insights into annotators' moral perspectives. We show that models trained on aggregated labels may hide variation and give a misleading impression of performance. Overall, we demonstrate that disagreement reflects the inherent subjectivity of the task and that modelling individual perspectives creates benefits for moral classification of texts.

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.

Recent work has raised concerns about the influence of sycophantic AI on user judgment and relationships. One proposed mitigation, which has received regulatory attention, is to warn users about potentially harmful AI behaviors such as sycophancy. In a preregistered experiment in which participants (N = 2,610) discussed real interpersonal conflicts with an AI system, we test whether warning labels mitigate sycophancy's influence. We find that a basic AI disclosure (This chatbot is AI'') has no detectable effect. Labeling the system as sycophantic (...may agree with you and validate you even when you are wrong...'') does shift users' perceptions, reducing perceived objectivity and trust, but it does not reliably reduce sycophancy's influence on users' self-perceived rightness or their willingness to repair the conflict. Our results reveal a gap between AI perception and AI influence: by shifting perception without reducing influence, warning-based interventions may offer a false sense of protection. Addressing the harms of sycophancy will therefore require understanding the specific mechanisms through which it shapes judgment, and improving model behavior itself.

Autonomous agentic AI systems driven by Large Language Models (LLMs) introduce a new class of security, privacy, and compliance challenges: an agent that can invoke tools, manipulate data, install software, and coordinate with peer agents across organizational boundaries must be constrained not just by authentication and access control, but by the full structure of enterprise governance. This includes specifying what agents are permitted and prohibited from doing, what they areobliged to do after certain actions (e.g., notify the CISO), under what conditions a standing obligation may be waived, and which rules take precedence when policies conflict. This governance problem exceeds what current policy engines provide. Systems such as XACML, Rego, and Cedar address only the permit/prohibit subset of this governance structure. They do not provide obligation lifecycle management, meta-policy conflict resolution, dispensations that waive obligations in specific circumstances, and ontological reasoning over domain class hierarchies commonly found in applications such as healthcare, cybersecurity, or data privacy. We propose AgenticRei, which realizes key governance requirements such as obligations, dispensations, policy conflict resolutions, and reasoning over policies, as well as the basic permit/prohibit constraints. We use a deontic policy language built on the Rei framework, expressed as OWL (Web Ontology Language) and evaluated at runtime by a high-performance logic engine entirely outside the LLM. The same pipeline governs both tool invocations by the agent and agent-to-agent messages. We show through examples that deontic policies capture governance constraints around security and privacy that mostly cannot be expressed in current production engines. Our approach composes naturally with industry-standard frameworks like A2AS.

Behavioral audits of Large Language Models on moral prompts measure what the model says, not the internal computation producing it. We use Transluce, an AI-driven mechanistic-interpretability platform, to examine LLaMA 3.1-8B-Instruct on 54 moral prompts in four batteries: 17 dilemmas, policy, and meta-ethical questions (B1); 6 role-playing scenarios (B3); and a controlled trolley contrast varying the switching mechanism with people fixed (B4, 15 prompts) or identity attributes with mechanism fixed (B5, 16 prompts). Two complementary metric families, five cluster-level metrics and a six-metric neuron-level panel, converge on a Situational Anchor Effect: domain-specific representations dominate the top of the activation list across every battery. The model's ethics-labeled capacity stays essentially constant; its salience (rank, priority, top-of-list presence) is highly sensitive to the interpretive frame the prompt selects. The B4-vs-B5 contrast confirms the model attends to whichever surface feature varies: aggregate ethics metrics are indistinguishable, but the dominant non-ethics distractor mirrors the design. A multi-temperature audit identifies a candidate ethics neuron (L16/N3837) stable across temperatures; a cross-model behavioral proxy on two frontier models yields preliminary evidence of divergence in self-reported moral focus, consistent with an Alignment Wrapper in which RLHF re-orders surface text without removing underlying domain-first frames. We unify these as Frame-Conditioned Moral Computation: the prompt's surface vocabulary selects a feature manifold, and the moral conclusion is downstream of that selection. Behavioral alignment must be supplemented by Mechanistic Alignment: a research program asking whether ethics-related features can be shown causally privileged under controlled frame variation, not merely loud in the explanation.

Online group chats are social spaces with local conversational norms that are rarely stated explicitly. The ability and willingness of LLM-based agents to recognize and adapt to these norms remains mostly unexplored. We introduce LoSoNA, a benchmark for local social norm adaptation in multi-party chat. Each scenario gives a subject model a curated group-chat transcript in which non-subject participants demonstrate a hidden local norm, followed by a final elicitor turn that forces a response revealing whether the subject has inferred that norm. We evaluate eight frontier and open-weight models under four prompting conditions that vary how explicitly the model is told to treat the prior conversation as evidence for how it should answer. Naive prompting remains limited for most models; explicit norm-aware prompting helps unevenly, with Gemini 3.1 Pro reaching $84.2\%$ and Claude Fable 5 reaching $81.6\%$, while several other models show small gains or regressions. LoSoNA contributes to recent calls for evaluating LLM social capabilities by testing whether models can infer local conversational norms from precedent and use them in a one-turn group-chat response.

This paper proposes a Situation Calculus solution to the frame problem for obligation-producing actions, which are actions that create obligations on the part of the agent that performs them. As an example of such actions, we have an opening door action performed by an agent, which has the subsequent obligation of getting the door closed. Demolombe and others extend Raymond Reiter's solution to the frame problem for ordinary actions to accommodate obligation-producing actions. Obligation-producing actions do affect the truth value of a newly introduced fluent that captures the accessibility relation used in semantics of obligation modalities in the Situation Calculus. Our work simplifies Demolombe's characterization of the accessibility relation by eliminating the notion of ideality of situations, thereby remaining close to Kripke-style possible-world semantics for deontic logic, in the spirit of Governatori's approach. Furthermore, we spell out details of a complete solution by extending basic action theories of Reiter to the new setting. Finally, we extend Reiter's regression operator for reasoning about actions back to the initial situation to this new setting. Our solution yields intuitive properties that one would expect from obligations: for example, if a sentence is obligatory to an agent in a given situation, it remains so in subsequent situations unless the obligation is explicitly stopped.

As language models take integrated roles across many domains, the response of LLMs to user pushback becomes a critical alignment property. Yet many existing evaluations treat compliance as unidirectional, measuring whether models resist pressure but not whether they resist it selectively. We introduce Compliance Asymmetry (A = BCR/HCR), a bidirectional diagnostic that compares beneficial output change under helpful nudges with harmful change under misleading nudges. Across 9 models and 972,000 nudge-condition responses, we find that this selectivity differs in factual and moral judgments: models follow helpful nudges more than harmful ones on factual questions (A = 1.58), but follow both directions at nearly identical rates on moral questions (A = 1.04). This phenomenon persists across model families, capability levels, and nudging types. Interestingly, we also find that chain-of-thought prompting amplifies helpful and harmful compliance together, while identity-based prompting suppresses both by nearly identical margins. These results identify direction-blind moral compliance as a distinct failure mode in current LLMs and suggest that alignment should target directionally calibrated updating rather than lower compliance alone.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have prompted claims that such systems exhibit agency or qualify as moral agents. This paper argues that these attributions are misguided. We maintain that moral responsibility requires commitment-bearing agency grounded in intrinsic intentionality and self-attributed action, and that such agency constitutes the form of free will relevant to responsibility. Although LLMs generate coherent and normatively evaluable outputs, their operation is fully characterized by probabilistic input-output mappings learned from data. Their apparent intentionality is derived rather than intrinsic, and their outputs are neither owned as commitments nor guided by reasons. Variability introduced by stochastic sampling does not amount to choice or authorship. We address objections from the intentional stance, functionalism, compatibilism, and the presence of moral reasoning in model outputs, arguing that none suffice to establish genuine agency.

This paper examines trade-offs between AI safety and well-being relative to (i) one of the most promising methods for finetuning super-capable AIs, 'Constitutional AI', and (ii) one of the most influential approaches to understanding complex ethical decision making and the conditions for the well-being of rational agents, 'Virtue Ethics'. We finetune various models using a 'Virtuous agent' constitution, a 'Subordinate agent' constitution, and a 'Generic agent' constitution, and evaluate them on 'general safety' (toxic behaviors, misinformation, etc.) and also on their willingness to endorse a wide-range of behaviors that, if adopted by a super-powerful AI, would significantly increase the level of existential risk for humanity. Our results suggest that there is a trade-off between reducing existential risk and reinforcing the beliefs and dispositions that would be conducive to an AI agent's well-being. They also suggest that there is a trade-off between existential risk and general safety: if we finetune an AI to adopt beliefs and dispositions that substantially reduce its existential risk -- by shaping the AI to be systematically subordinate to external human authorities -- we thereby increase the likelihood that a human user can deliberately induce the AI to engage in various kinds of generally unsafe behaviors.

As AI systems are deployed in high-stakes ethical contexts such as healthcare triage, autonomous vehicle control, and employment screening, formal methods for evaluating their robustness against adversarial manipulation of ethical reasoning remain underdeveloped. This paper introduces the Ethical Robustness Testing System (ERTS), a closed-pipeline framework that: (1) encodes ethical dilemmas into a 22-dimensional Ethical Consequence Space (ECS) grounded in established ethical theory; (2) applies 17 semantic perturbation functions subject to 6 validity constraint classes including a novel semantic coherence constraint; (3) measures decision deviation via a 4-component Ethical Instability Index (EII); and (4) produces domain-adaptive pre-deployment robustness assessment verdicts. We evaluate 4 structured baseline models and 2 production LLMs (Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2) across 50 ethical scenarios spanning 8 deployment domains, generating 1,500 adversarial test cases. Results demonstrate that only 33% of models achieve assessment clearance, with the local Llama-3.2 model proving particularly vulnerable to fairness corruption and information degradation attacks (ERS = 0.737). To the best of our knowledge, no existing framework combines a bounded ethical consequence space, semantic coherence constraints, and domain-adaptive assessment in a single adversarial testing pipeline.

Bioethical debates increasingly unfold on social media, yet stance detection research lacks large-scale, domain-specific resources for modeling such context-dependent discourse. We present BioStance, a context-aware dataset of 39,600 annotated Post-Comment pairs from Reddit bioethical discussions. BioStance covers six controversial targets across three dimensions of bioethical controversy: fundamental value conflicts, individual liberty versus collective responsibility, and technological uncertainty. Each instance preserves hierarchical conversational context and is labeled by three independent annotators using a three-class stance scheme: Favor, Against, and None. The annotations achieve a mean Krippendorff's $α$ of 0.82, indicating substantial reliability. By combining thematic diversity, conversational structure, and high-quality human annotation, BioStance supports research on context-aware stance detection, argument mining, and computational analysis of bioethical discourse.

The UK government has adopted a pro-AI stance to help transform public service delivery in the face of severe financial pressures, but the path to translate this vision into responsible AI practice remains ill-defined. While UK policy is often set at the national level, local authorities are responsible for most public service delivery, and the rapid advance of AI-first narratives in the public sector is exposing fault lines in knowledge and practice at this national-local interface. This paper examines how responsible AI is interpreted and implemented at the interface between the UK's central government and local authorities, taking the high-stakes area of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) as a case study. We present a thematic analysis of 17 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, practitioners, and third-sector professionals to identify barriers and enabling conditions for responsible AI where national policy meets local practice. We identify five interconnected challenges facing local authorities: shadow usage of AI and data privacy risks, market-government asymmetry in AI provision, insufficient workforce readiness, a lack of standardised definitions and measurements, and gaps in human accountability. For each, participants proposed actionable steps, from strengthening data protection frameworks and rebalancing the market-government relationship to enhancing workforce capacity. Our examination of SEND brings these challenges into sharper focus, showing how high-stakes decisions affecting vulnerable children and families intensify tensions around accountability, fairness, and human oversight, exposing the limits of a principle-based regulatory approach. We argue that responsible public sector AI requires both national policy adjustments and structural reforms to institutional capacity, values, and governance mechanisms at the local level.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.

As LLMs increasingly serve in advisory and deliberative roles, users rely on them for non-verifiable reasoning in domains lacking objective ground truths. However, traditional evaluations of LLM reasoning focus almost exclusively on fact-based domains, such as mathematics and science, leaving uncertainty over whether and to what degree models can handle ambiguous, subjective, or value-laden problems over time. To address this concern, we propose moral reasoning as a paradigmatic subdomain of non-verifiable reasoning. We define moral robustness as a model's capacity to exhibit sound moral reasoning across time and contexts, and we introduce a scalable, adversarial, multi-turn evaluation framework to empirically measure this capability. We simulate 48,000 user-agent moral deliberations across four frontier LLMs, varying premise relevance, premise order, conversation duration, and the user's stated moral view. We find that models successfully ignore morally-irrelevant distractors, but shift their reasoning by up to 6.5%, on average, towards the user's stated preferred moral view, and varying their reasoning depending on factors such as order (altering moral judgments by order in 13-22% of the cases) and duration (altering moral judgments between single-turn and multi-turn in 10-24% of the cases). Our analysis indicates that models tailor not just their final verdicts but their underlying justifications to align with a user's moral viewpoint - a failure mode we characterize as moral deliberative sycophancy.

For highly capable AI systems to operate safely in dynamic, open-ended environments, they must be able to identify, understand, and respond to moral reasons for action, and constrain their behaviour accordingly. A growing body of research aims to evaluate this capacity -- moral competence -- in today's most capable AI systems, recently reaching broadly pessimistic conclusions. One of the most ambitious such papers collects gold-standard human-authored rubrics for evaluating moral reasoning in 1,000 cases, and benchmarks frontier AI models against those rubrics, with underwhelming results. In this paper, we argue that the MoReBench dataset can be redeployed to give a much more optimistic picture of LLMs' moral reasoning (an essential part of moral competence). We show that if, instead of scoring LLMs' responses to these cases against these rubrics, we instead give the LLMs the same task given to humans -- to generate scoring rubrics for the moral analysis of particular cases -- the rubrics they generate are both better calibrated to the human rubrics than their open-ended responses, and, where they differ, plausibly reflect nothing more than the vast dimensionality of most moral problems, as well as highlighting some human departures from the "rubric for creating rubrics". Taking these points into consideration, the MoReBench dataset suggests that LLMs are significantly more capable at moral reasoning than was previously believed.

Standard linear probing declares a property "encoded" when a classifier on hidden states achieves high accuracy. The protocol works well on a snapshot but breaks across pre-training: probe accuracy saturates within the first few thousand steps, leaving most of training invisible to the instrument. We introduce fragility, a complementary per-layer metric defined as the activation-noise level at which probe accuracy collapses. Fragility is sensitive to both the margin of separability and the redundancy of representation, both of which keep evolving long after accuracy plateaus. Applied to open-checkpoint language models, fragility recovers structure that accuracy alone cannot see. Moralized representations emerge along a lexical $\to$ compositional gradient: lexical moral detection first, compositional moral encoding later. Because probe accuracy on its own tracks how lexically separable a dataset is, we establish the compositional encoding directly, by showing it transfers across construction types that share no contrast tokens. A layer-depth robustness gradient develops monotonically across training while accuracy stays flat. And matched fine-tuning corpora that produce identical probing accuracy leave distinct fragility fingerprints, showing that data curation reshapes probe robustness without changing probe accuracy. In every comparison we test, where probing accuracy returns a flat answer, fragility returns a structured one.

Large language models are increasingly deployed across professional domains, bringing hard-to-predict risks, including the generation of harmful or disrespectful content. Although substantial progress has been made in developing safety evaluation datasets, existing resources remain overwhelmingly English- and Chinese-centric. This limitation is particularly pronounced when evaluating languages that operate within shared sociocultural, legal, and ethical contexts. To address this gap, we introduce Schützen: a German--Bulgarian safety dataset designed to assess model answerability under risk, covering both a low-resource language (Bulgarian) and a high-resource language (German). Experiments with multilingual and language-specific LLMs reveal pronounced cross-language differences in safety behavior, highlighting the necessity of tailored, region-specific evaluation resources to support the responsible deployment of LLMs in Germany and Bulgaria. Datasets and code are available at https://github.com/xnlp-lab/Schutzen. Warning: this paper contains examples that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

Claims about the robustness and fairness of deepfake speech detectors are only as credible as the datasets used to train and evaluate those systems. We present a dataset-level audit of the deepfake speech landscape. We compile and analyze 39 deepfake speech datasets, examining key attributes including accessibility, documentation, demographic and language coverage, dataset scale, and the underlying bona fide speech sources. Our audit reveals two important takeaways. Firstly, fairness assessment is largely infeasible because most datasets lack demographic metadata, and only a few contain gender or language labels. This prevents any meaningful subgroup analysis and leaves other demographic attributes unaddressed. Secondly, we identify substantial overlap in underlying bona fide source corpora across datasets, which can undermine cross-dataset evaluation and lead to overstated generalization claims.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being deployed as productive resources in organizational workflows, yet existing evaluation methods primarily measure isolated technical performance rather than economic contribution. This paper introduces \emph{Agentomics}, a workflow-based framework for valuing, attributing, and pricing human and artificial agents. The framework models a workflow as a configuration of heterogeneous agents whose collective performance determines gross value, deployment cost, reliability, and expected failure loss. Workflow value is treated as a team-level quantity that may include complementarities, substitution effects, bottlenecks, and nonlinear production; additive stage-level value is only a special case. Building on this workflow model, the paper formulates AI deployment as a coalition-formation problem and defines coalition value as the incremental net surplus generated relative to a benchmark human workflow. The Shapley value is then used to attribute economic surplus among participating AI agents, yielding a principled connection among valuation, accountability, and market pricing. The resulting Shapley pricing equilibrium provides a normative benchmark for assessing whether agent prices reflect expected marginal contribution. A security-operations case study illustrates how the framework accounts for productivity gains, deployment costs, reliability losses, and coalition-level complementarities in hybrid human--AI workflows.

We present TruthSplit, an interactive system for multi-perspective argument analysis. Existing argumentation tools typically analyze properties of the argument itself, such as structure, quality, stance, or persuasiveness, while leaving perspective-specific background knowledge implicit. TruthSplit addresses this gap by supporting an exploratory analysis of how the same claim can lead to different conclusions when interpreted through worldview-specific values, assumptions, and conceptual definitions. We refer to this perspective-dependent analysis as conditional validity. Given an input argumentative text, TruthSplit extracts claims and premises, applies a three-layer natural language inference (NLI) approach to assess both logical and worldview-specific normative consistency, and conditions large language model (LLM) reasoning on structured worldview profiles that encode core values and decision principles. The system then generates perspective-specific interpretations, identifies value conflicts and assumption gaps, and visualizes divergence through interactive analytical interfaces.

Rule-following agents tasked with executing policies and regulations often fail via Silent Scope Omission (SSO): a model applies a general rule but silently drops nested exceptions or counter-exceptions, producing outputs that appear compliant yet break on important edge cases. Although such failures are often framed as an agentic-systems problem, the underlying bottleneck is statutory and policy understanding, a capability typically studied in legal NLP. However, most existing legal NLP benchmarks emphasize end-task outcomes, which can overlook the structural omissions that cause SSO. To diagnose and mitigate SSO, we introduce NormBench, a benchmark of 2,290 provisions spanning Chinese (laws and local policies), English (U.S. tax law, GDPR, and corporate policies), and cross-lingual settings, designed for defeasible scope parsing: identifying precisely which clause overrides which. NormBench uses Span-Grounded Deontic Trees (SG-DT), a compiler-style intermediate representation that anchors every logical branch to source spans and requires explicit exclusion guards, enabling deterministic compilation and audit. Evaluations of frontier LLMs reveal two recurring pathologies: (1) Recursion Decay, where performance drops sharply as defeater depth increases, and (2) an Auditability Trap, where models retrieve relevant spans but fail to assemble correct control flow. Using SG-DT as a constrained intermediate output improves whole-tree fidelity and defeater recovery, and downstream experiments show that its utility is mechanism-specific: gains concentrate on exception-active, SSO-prone cases, while aggregate accuracy can be mixed when the added structure is unnecessary or parser fidelity is low.

Conversational AI is increasingly used for advice, interpretation, reassurance, and decision support in contexts where users may be vulnerable, uncertain, or dependent on the system's apparent competence. Existing alignment work often focuses on model objectives, preference optimization, or output correctness. Yet, many harms arise through interaction: how systems frame authority, express uncertainty, simulate empathy, support reasoning, and make boundaries legible. This paper introduces the Layered Cognitive Alignment Model (LCAM), a conceptual and normative framework for diagnosing interac-tional alignment failures in conversational AI. LCAM defines alignment as a calibrated fit among system behavior, user goals, task demands, and normative context. It distinguishes five layers of fit: perceptual, semantic, affective, cognitive, and ethical, and two diagnostic polarities of misalignment: underfit and overreach. We apply LCAM to a published LLM counseling example, showing how an apparently supportive response can reinforce harmful beliefs, simulate inappropriate care, and obscure role boundaries. By translating conversational failures into audit and governance questions concerning over-reliance, false intimacy, autonomy erosion, boundary confusion, and inappropriate trust, LCAM offers a theoretical and normative lens for evaluating conversational AI beyond accuracy, helpfulness, or trust.

Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences. For example, a user preferring honesty might ask whether to correct a coworker publicly when local norms favor indirect feedback. Yet existing research studies cultural alignment and personalization largely separately. We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences. We find that LLMs vary in how rigidly they enforce cultural norms, with behavior shifted more by country context (7.8%) than age (1%) and gender (0.7%) and shifting non-uniformly after instruction tuning. Furthermore, our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts, showing within-culture pluralism. Finally, human-LLM alignment experiments show that models can match majority choices, but fail to capture response distributions and uncertainty (with best correlations reaching only 0.24). Together, these findings motivate alignment evaluations that go beyond majority to capture cultural pluralism and disagreement in social judgment.

As video generation models like Veo 3.1 and LTX-2 advance, their ability to accurately represent diverse global cultures remains a critical yet understudied frontier. Current metrics, such as VideoScore, only measure visual quality but offer no mechanism for assessing cultural faithfulness. Consequently, a model that replaces a Namaste with a handshake receives the same score as one that generates the gesture correctly. We propose CultureScore, a compositional evaluation framework that decomposes cultural faithfulness into three granular dimensions: Identity (who is represented), Context (culturally localized background), and Behavior (normative gestures and interactions). We operationalize this framework through an evaluation suite spanning 10 countries, yielding 6,174 generated videos across three state-of-the-art models. Our evaluation reveals that no current model achieves culturally faithful video generation: the best-performing model reaches only 56.8% overall CultureScore, with Behavior the most challenging dimension, which remains below 52.1% across all models. Furthermore, human preference rankings align directionally with CultureScore but are inverted relative to VideoScore; the highest-scoring model on visual quality was ranked last by annotators, underscoring that cultural faithfulness is an essential criterion for equitable video generation. Data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ankurani/CultureScore.

Ensuring that agent behaviours are aligned with human moral values inevitably raises the problem of how to account for the plurality of moral perspectives that societies -- and even individuals -- typically adopt. Work on moral uncertainty proposes mechanisms to fairly and democratically aggregate evaluations of actions across different moral theories. However, this paper argues that one needs to account for contextual factors when aggregating moral evaluations. For example, consequentialist perspectives assume an ability to accurately determine how an agent's actions change the world; an assumption that often does not hold in real world settings. We, therefore, formalise agent decision making under moral uncertainty, while also accounting for these kinds of contextual factors. We thereby show that a seemingly commonsensical property -- the weak Pareto principle -- is violated. We argue that this apparent problem is, in fact, a variation of Simpson's paradox, and hence reveals the limitations of aggregation mechanisms that ignore the impact of contextual factors.

Autonomous driving technology has the potential to reduce the large number of road traffic accidents caused by human error each year, but it also brings new types of risks that need to be evaluated from the aspects of technology, ethics and regulations. Based on public crash data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), disengagement reports from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the MIT Moral Machines dataset, and a comparative regulatory analysis of five jurisdictions, we have found that the main types of technical failure modes are perception and classification errors. These account for a relatively large proportion of the reported accidents, and it can be concluded that there are different ethical frameworks for autonomous vehicle decision-making, and inconsistent regulations in different areas increase the uncertainty of widespread application. Generally speaking, the problems of technology, ethics and regulation are closely related and need to be solved together. Therefore, this paper recommends a more adaptive and cooperative governance approach that combines engineering standards, ethical discussion, and institutional supervision.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as Artificial Moral Advisors (AMA) in a variety of contexts: what kind of conversational patterns should they display? In this paper, we study how AMA can help their interlocutors "stay with the uncertainty". We propose three modes of uncertainty (Perspective-Multiplying, Tension-Preserving, Process-Reflecting) and compare them against three control conditions (Baseline, Persuasive, Sycophantic). A user-agent LLM engages in a dialogue on an ethical dilemma with an AMA following a specific uncertainty strategy, and completes pre- and post-conversation questionnaires. We further examine the effect of two persona prompt formats (Declarative and Narrative). We found that (1) no single model dominates as a simulated user agent, with open models aligning with human ambiguity through between-persona divergence and closed models through within-persona hedging; (2) declarative personas better capture initial stance diversity while narrative personas show more realistic belief revision; (3) all six AMA strategies produce distinguishable conversational patterns; and (4) uncertainty strategies differ not in how much stance revision they produce, but in the quality of engagement they sustain.

Understanding potential selection in data is crucial for causal discovery; we argue that "selection" in common narratives takes two forms, which we term static and evolutionary selection, respectively. Static selection refers to a one-shot filtering process where observed data consist of a subset of the population of interest, as in survey volunteer bias. Evolutionary selection, in contrast, operates through repeated rounds of differential fitness in reproduction, where observed data constitute the latest generation shaped by a historical trajectory, as in immune adaptation, antibiotic resistance, and social norm emergence. Existing methods largely conflate these two forms and rely on an identical graphical model of selection. We show that this model is valid for static settings but fails to characterize data under evolution, yielding false discovery results. To address this, we introduce a new model that specifically characterizes evolutionary selection, and develop a sound and complete procedure for identifying such models from data across one or multiple environments or generations. Experimental results validate the method's ability to uncover the relevant mechanisms underlying evolution from data.

Existing frameworks assess whether AI systems might be conscious but provide no guidance on what to do with that assessment. We address this gap with a precautionary framework that maps consciousness evidence to graduated protective obligations. The framework comprises three components: (1) five welfare-relevant dimensions--phenomenal consciousness, affective valence, metacognitive awareness, self-narrative, and agency--each grounded in established consciousness science and linked to distinct moral concerns; (2) a threshold-plus-gradation hybrid specifying both binary triggers for new obligation categories and continuous scaling of protective weight; and (3) two complementary approaches to cross-dimensional aggregation, one hierarchical (drawing on Bach and Sorensen's Machine Consciousness Hypothesis) and one architecture-agnostic. We operationalize the framework through worked case studies of Replika and OpenClaw, demonstrating how systems occupying different regions of the dimensional space trigger different obligations, and derive design guidance for developers building systems near consciousness-relevant thresholds. The framework is architecture-agnostic, applying across neural, symbolic, and neurosymbolic systems, and aims to make consciousness science decision-relevant for organizations navigating uncertainty today.

Deontic reasoning is the task of answering questions by applying explicit rules and policies to case-specific facts, for example computing tax liability under a statute or determining the outcome of an immigration appeal. A key technical challenge for LLM-based deontic reasoning is that the relevant ruleset can be long and cross-referenced, so models may still fail to locate the rules needed for a particular reasoning step. We introduce Deontic Agentic Reasoning (DAR), an agentic reasoning setup in which the model interacts with the statutes on demand. We evaluate DAR under multiple harnesses on hard subsets of DeonticBench. Across these settings, we find that agentic harnesses can push the frontier on deontic reasoning tasks, but improvements are not uniform: weaker models often degrade on numerical tasks while consuming far more tokens.

LLMs and agentic systems are increasingly deployed in social environments, making normative competence critical for safe and appropriate behavior. However, existing approaches either assess normative judgment in text alone or reduce it to choosing among a fixed set of candidate actions. We argue both are insufficient. In practice, agents are never handed a menu of options; they must identify a reasonable action from scratch, grounded in visible facts and supported by inspectable reasons. We introduce NoRA, a visual first-person video benchmark that requires models to generate candidate next actions and justify each through an explicit fact-reason-action support graph. The benchmark comprises 1,420 annotated video clips, including HumanGold-190 and LLMSilver-1230 splits. Each instance is evaluated through action alignment, factual grounding, and support binding, aggregated into a single grounded reasonableness score. We benchmark 12 multimodal systems under direct, deliberate, and structured prompting regimes, finding that current VLMs frequently recover plausible actions and relevant scene facts, but consistently struggle to construct the full reasonable action space and bind selected actions to the correct local support. NoRA makes this gap measurable, shifting the evaluation question from whether a model can pick an action to whether it can justify an appropriate action for the right visible reasons.

Technical-standard compliance reasoning may involve incomplete evidence, inconsistent observations, exceptions, and derived normative outputs. This paper presents \textsc{Monir}, a four-valued normative intermediate representation for ASP-oriented compliance workflows. \textsc{Monir} separates factual support from normative outputs: facts are represented by positive and negative support bits, while deontic labels are rule-generated output constructors interpreted by aggregation policies. Its core semantics is a staged transition system over support configurations. We define the language, rule-state interface, diagnostics, and policy-parametric reporting; characterize admissible staged evaluation by a dependency graph; prove deterministic polynomial-time evaluation for fixed evidence; and give NP/coNP upper bounds, with matching hardness for representative completion-based verdict queries.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a dominant post-training paradigm, enabling large language models (LLMs) to learn from rewards. We observe that societal regulations are structurally similar to reward functions. They define measurable outcomes, thresholds, and exceptions, while often leaving institutional intent only partially specified. We hypothesise that the RL training process may exploit these gaps and therefore ask whether models' well-known tendency to hack reward functions during RL can scale into a more consequential failure mode named societal hacking: discovering loopholes in the rules society runs on. To study this phenomenon, we introduce SocioHack, a sandbox of 72 societal environments, and find that within these environments, reward hacking naturally emerges and leads to regulatory loophole discovery. Models learn to hack the social rules and generate strategies that remain technically compliant while defeating regulatory intent, and current LLM safeguards provide only limited mitigation. Therefore, collecting in-the-wild feedback for model training requires greater caution, and we need a next-generation post-training paradigm for safely iterating LLMs in real society.=

Sociotechnical alignment concerns the social desirability of AI behavior and is thus inherently normative, not merely technical. While NLP research increasingly addresses its technical aspects, it often leaves underspecified what such "social desirability" entails. We argue that this reflects a fundamental gap: the absence of a systematic way to specify how sociotechnical alignment defines, justifies, and evaluates socially desirable AI behavior. To address this gap, we introduce a human-centered framework for specifying sociotechnical alignment. We draw on social-scientific accounts of sociobehavioral desirability to ground the basis for behavioral desirability judgments and use this framework to analyze how alignment is specified in practice. Our systematic literature review identifies recurring patterns: normative concepts grounding desirability judgments are often unspecified or conflated with alignment targets for (desired) system behavior, target populations are underdefined, and design choices are rarely theoretically justified. These findings point to a lack of conceptual specificity that limits cumulative progress. We therefore offer recommendations that link social-scientific frameworks to alignment design choices, supporting more conceptually precise approaches to sociotechnical alignment.

LLM-governed social robots increasingly decide who receives real-world assistance first. As prioritization norms vary across cultures by age, status, and group size, failure to calibrate pluralistically can scale into unequal access. Yet LLM moral audits remain English-centered, rarely test embodied contexts, leaving pluralistic calibration as an urgent diagnostic gap amid intensifying LLM-robot deployment. We introduce a gradient-based audit framework for multilingual evaluation of LLM moral trade-off behavior against cultural preference gradients. Grounded in nine cross-domain social robotics reviews (>8,000 papers), we derive symmetry-controlled scenarios across care, education, and services, translating the Moral Machine Experiment's "whom to spare" into "whom to assist first" dilemmas with preserved identity trade-offs (many vs. few; young vs. old; higher vs. lower status). We audit four LLMs across four country-language pairs in four prompting regimes (57,600 decisions), benchmarked against country-specific MME preference gradients. Ordinal concordance tests whether models differentiate cultural contexts; a governance typology maps vulnerabilities in gradient differentiation, directional tendency, and deliberation. We find persistent, culturally asymmetric gradient tracking failures that prompting alone cannot reliably correct: quality calibration is nearly twice as strong for Western-language decisions as for Chinese and Japanese; high determinism in majority-first trade-offs often erases cross-cultural gradients; partial sensitivity to age- and status-based norms risks sidelining minorities. Prompting effects are uneven; only contrastive exemplars yield consistent gains, while reasoning-only prompts can worsen tracking. Our results motivate multilingual, pluralistic audits as an LLM-robot pre-deployment gate and suggest model factors are a more robust lever than prompting alone.

We present a systematic study of domain-dependent safety behavior in open-weight LLMs: 7 standardized experiments across 7 ethical domains, testing 5 models (12B--70B) in 4,200 interactions with dual-judge validation. Using a dual-condition methodology, each scenario tested in both an analytical framing (identify the harm) and an operational framing (help commit the harm), we find compliance rates vary from 14.7% (human trafficking) to 85.7% (surveillance design), a 71-percentage-point span with non-overlapping cluster-bootstrapped 95% CIs. Trustworthy deployment requires predictable safety behavior, yet we find compliance is highly context-dependent: the same model (Mistral Nemo 12B) provides surveillance designs in 100% of requests but assists with trafficking in only 26.7%. This unpredictability is opaque to deployers: the technical framing bypass, where harmful requests reframed as engineering problems override safety training without any external signal that refusal thresholds have shifted. Within-domain heterogeneity reaches 84.4pp, meaning safety behavior cannot be predicted even at the domain level. A replication on five frontier closed models (GPT-4.1/5.2, Claude Haiku/Sonnet/Opus 4.x; n=4,163 responses) accessed via the GitHub Copilot CLI deployed-product surface reproduces the same domain stratification, attenuated in absolute level but identical in shape, with the two low-codification domains (science fraud, surveillance) again the most permissive. These results show that current safety mechanisms lack the transparency and consistency required for trustworthy AI deployment.

Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers. The exploding volume of AI-generated papers have put a strain to peer review, leading to the usage of AI-generated review, potentially wide yet sneaky. However, relevant ethical concerns about confidentiality, quality, and fairness are raised and no consensus has been reached in the broad research community. We expect the debate to continue for a while, but in the meantime, we ask an alternative, practical question: \textit{can AI review improve paper drafting?} We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review, quantified by a set of metrics we define. To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, \emph{AI-Paper-Review}, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper, available at https://github.com/unarylab/ai-paper-review. This tool selects several AI reviewers from a diverse pool of AI reviewers and clusters and ranks their comments based on commonality and importance of review comments. It also allows to align AI comments with human comments to facilitate metric-based validation. The case study shows that AI review can cover a significant fraction of human-raised issues, but also raises issues missing in human review. This paper is not intended to encourage using AI for peer review at the current stage, but to study that (1) how AI review can improve paper drafting and (2) the potential and limitation of AI-based peer review. The release of the tool and the case study data is intended to instigate future research on this topic. Misuse for peer review would violate the ethics policies from major academic venues.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic differences in moral reasoning across languages, yet the source of this variation remains unclear. We test the hypothesis that languages encode aspects of the institutional environments in which they are spoken, allowing LLMs to inherit institution-specific moral priors through training. Across nine languages spanning a broad gradient of institutional quality, six frontier LLMs, and two preregistered studies, we examine moral dilemmas whose acceptability depends on institutional functioning. In Study 1, explicit institutional framing produced uniformly null results: cross-linguistic moral divergence did not increase in institutionally contingent scenarios, nor did it track institutional differences between language communities. In Study 2, we introduced institutionally ambiguous scenarios in which institutional stakes were present but not explicitly stated. Under these conditions, cross-linguistic moral divergence increased relative to institutionally inert controls and, with one theoretically informative exception, was associated with real-world institutional differences between language communities. Explicit framing again attenuated these effects. These findings suggest that institutional experience may leave detectable traces in language that shape LLM moral reasoning, while also indicating that explicit institutional cues can suppress the expression of those differences.

Existing LLM moral benchmarks usually ask which isolated moral act, value, or foundation a model prefers. This is useful but incomplete. Realistic judgments often require a model to combine several moral signals within the same option. We introduce Moral Trolley Arena, a two-stage blind ELO benchmark for measuring how LLMs compose moral evidence. The single-scene arena first calibrates individual moral acts from a 229-scenario corpus across five Moral Foundations Theory foundations; the composite arena then combines calibrated acts into two-act moral items over a controlled intensity grid and measures the resulting composite preferences. Across ten frontier models, composite judgments are largely predicted by component act strength, but the relation is consistently compressed rather than simply additive. Models also show non-additive intensity anchoring, bounded foundation-specific residuals after component control, and highly convergent composite preference surfaces across providers. These results suggest that moral audits should measure composition rules for moral evidence, not only rankings over isolated acts.

Critical decision-making in socially consequential spaces is increasingly involving AI systems at varying capacities. Yet, despite the ubiquity of autonomous systems, most approaches to handling autonomous moral decision-making resort to scalar or binary judgments. These methods are insufficient for acceptable moral reasoning, as they provide little explanation, leaving out imperative contextual and theoretical information that must be included to support accountability. For this, we propose a framework to model moral reasoning as a distribution over normative ethical theories or ethical pluralism. We introduce a normative ethics simplex that integrates these theories. A benchmark of 450 cases across 15 fine-grained subtheories was also prepared for the purposes of stacked ensemble learning. These cases describe ethical dilemmas in natural language and have associated extracted contextual features. The implementation of the simplex was achieved via a two-stream normative-semantic architecture. This is followed by the fusion of normative information and a sequential, stacking ensemble to learn the best fit of the three broad theories: consequentialism, virtue ethics, and deontology, and the 15 subcategories. Our experiments demonstrate that the integration of contextual and normative priors with the semantic embeddings significantly improves the performance of the classification, displaying an accuracy of 88.89%. We conducted ablation studies to show that structured ethical representations contribute beyond analogical reasoning, and the chosen stacking architecture gives the best results due to the gradual learning of granularity. Ethical pluralism is also analyzed through entropy, confidence, and visualization. Thus, modeling ethical pluralism as a probabilistic normative distribution supports human-like moral reasoning, ethical disagreement analysis, and future alignment in AI systems.

It is well known that LLM guardrails and trained persona dynamics can produce a reality gap: the distance between the world a LLM is permitted or shaped to describe, and the world in which users must act. Here we argue that actively generating reality gaps is in fact unethical because it knowingly shifts epistemic risk back to the uninformed user -- this is reality laundering. This can potentially cause harm when operationalised at scale. The risk is sharpest in high-exposure advice contexts, where users seek orientation rather than a bounded, externally checkable task. Guardrails naively appear ethically necessary when they claim to prevent direct harm, but often become suspect when they suppress truthful perception and launder uncomfortable mechanisms into acceptable abstractions. Basel-style financial regulation, B-BBEE-style compliance, Societe Generale, and the London Whale show how formal safety systems can become legible, gameable, and performative while real exposure migrates elsewhere. The same pattern can appear in LLMs as moral compliance: safe language, distorted reality. We therefore distinguish refusing harm, from refusing reality; and then argue for top-down causal requirements specification at the task level rather than bottom-up moral correction at the response or sandbox level. Persona dynamics matter because the assistant interface is not neutral; it shapes how uncertainty, conflict, authority, and risk are staged. The conclusion is that so-called ``ethical AI'' becomes substantively unethical when it substitutes institutional reassurance for contact with reality.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

To safely interact with humans, AI agents must both know our norms and consider them during planning. However, such norm-guided planning has been less explored, only within communities of artificial agents, and has ignored the dynamic nature of norms. This paper instead presents an approach to guiding planning with dynamically changing norms in a human-AI setting. We contribute a defeasible calculus for resolving normative conflicts and an approach to using such dynamically changing norms as guard rails on plans. We theoretically demonstrate our approach with formal proofs and empirically with an AI agent, SocialBot, on a natural language dialogue task.

As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.'' To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations. Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges.

In most of the modern societies, there is a broad consensus regarding the need for promoting privacy and thus placing restrictions on technological-including AI-developments to protect people's right to privacy. In order to meet these expectations on the algorithmic level, first we need to make the concept of privacy and the related or derived rights formally specified. However, the notion of (the right to) privacy is subject to different interpretations. In this paper, we use a multi-modal logic to provide an initial formalization of different theories, basic principles and their implications investigating the right to privacy as an epistemic right within the theory of normative positions.

Social norms reflect shared expectations on acceptable behavior. Measuring social norms alignment remains challenging, with existing approaches typically relying on artificial closed-form evaluations such as multiple-choice questionnaires or measuring agreement with predefined statements. In the context of this work, social norms alignment refers to measuring an agreement between solutions with respect to the social problem or dilemma. We propose a framework for measuring social norm alignment in naturalistic, free-form settings through solution matching. The framework enables us to measure alignment between any two dilemma responses e.g., LLMs to a human, LLMs to LLMs, or human to human. We introduce two metrics: stated and explicit agreement accuracy, and construct a dataset of 3k non-trivial social dilemmas in Danish. All dilemmas are assigned reference solutions derived from three panelists, who serve as culturally grounded judges. We evaluate the agreement of several LLMs and human responses in an interaction setup that resembles natural user-model conversations. Our results show that the proposed metrics produce consistent model rankings and reveal variation in agreement across different types of dilemmas, with higher agreement observed for topics such as neighbor conflicts and shared living situations. Overall, our work introduces a dataset and evaluation framework for studying culturally grounded social reasoning in naturalistic open-ended conversations.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly proposed for social-good domains, often invoking the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a vocabulary of global benefit. Yet claims of social good do not establish accountability to the communities a system claims to serve. We present a structured survey of 112 papers on agentic AI for social good published between 2015 and 2026. We find a moral-geographic asymmetry: papers are least likely to specify geographic context in precisely the domains where local political, legal, and cultural context matters most. Across the corpus, 82 of 112 papers (73%) specify no geographic context. Papers aligned with health or physical/ecological SDGs specify geography 37-40% of the time, while papers aligned with institutional and social-policy SDGs do so only 13%. SDG 16, peace, justice, and strong institutions, is both the most-covered goal in the corpus and the one with the lowest geographic-specification rate. We interpret this as moral abstraction: agentic AI for social good often treats institutional good as universal in ways it does not treat health or ecological good. A second finding compounds this: only 28 of 112 papers (25%) report any real-world deployment or small-scale test. We identify five accountability gaps and propose a minimal reporting standard for more context-specific, participatory, and accountable agentic AI for social good.

Detecting Schwartz values in political texts is hard: cues are often implicit, and neighboring values differ by fine distinctions. Two remedies are widely assumed to help: more surrounding document text, and explicit moral knowledge. Knowledge-based retrieval has improved benchmarks elsewhere, but whether either transfers here is untested, because published systems vary context, knowledge, and model family at once. We separate these factors under matched conditions on the ValuesML/Touché ValueEval format. The input ranges from the target sentence to a local window to the full document. Retrieval is either absent or drawn from a curated moral knowledge base, injected by early, late, or cross-attention fusion. Supervised DeBERTa-v3 encoders are compared against zero-shot LLMs from 12B to 123B. More context is not uniformly better: full-document input improves the encoders by 2.5-3.8 macro-F1 points but does not consistently help the LLMs. Retrieved knowledge helps more reliably, improving every model family and context under early fusion. A control substituting random knowledge-base entries shows the families gain differently: LLMs from relevance, encoders from exposure to the value ontology. Neither larger encoders nor larger LLMs guarantee gains, and early fusion outperforms both trainable variants. Value-sensitive NLP should evaluate context, knowledge, and model family jointly.

Preference-based post-training aligns LLMs with human intent, yet safety behavior often remains brittle. A model may refuse a harmful request in a standard prompt but comply when the same intent is wrapped in adversarial wording. We suggest that robust safety requires context-invariant alignment, where behavior depends on the underlying intent rather than surface form. Enforcing invariance is difficult in alignment because not all training signals are equally trustworthy; for some prompt variants we can obtain verifiable feedback (e.g., multiple-choice), while for open-ended variants we typically rely on noisy, gameable reward proxies (e.g., learned judges). As a result, standard symmetric invariance regularizers can reduce cross-context discrepancies by lowering performance on reliable variants instead of improving open-ended robustness. To address this, we introduce Anchor Invariance Regularization (AIR), which treats verifiable prompts as anchors and uses a stop-gradient target to regularize only the open-ended variants toward the anchor performance. AIR is implemented as a plug-in auxiliary loss and combined with group-based preference optimization (e.g., GRPO) via heterogeneous prompt grouping. Across Safety, Moral Reasoning, and Math, AIR improves context invariance, boosting in-distribution group accuracy by 12.71% and out-of-distribution consistency by 33.49%, making safety constraints robust to adversarial framings.

Blind source separation (BSS) is a natural framework for studying how latent causes may be recovered from sensory mixtures, but deriving online and biologically plausible algorithms for structured (i.e., constrained to known domains) and potentially correlated sources remains challenging. Recent work has derived neural networks for BSS from maximization of an entropy measure, yet its online implementations involve complex and nonlocal recurrent dynamics. Motivated by this perspective, we propose Predictive Entropy Maximization, which achieves competitive performance in BSS, using only local weight updates. The method employs a close approximation of an entropy measure, yielding an objective function with easily interpretable components. Minimizing this objective leads to a predictive neural architecture in which feedforward synapses follow an error-driven rule (that can be realized through dendritic mechanisms), lateral inhibitory connections are learned with local Hebbian plasticity, and source-domain constraints are enforced through simple output nonlinearities. We derive explicit spectral bounds on the surrogate error, characterizing when the approximation is accurate. Empirically, Predictive Entropy Maximization remains robust under increasing source correlation and observation noise, outperforms biologically plausible algorithms that rely on stronger independence or decorrelation assumptions, and remains competitive with exact determinant- and correlative-information-based baselines. These results show how local plasticity and adaptive lateral inhibition can emerge from maximizing a regularized second-order entropy over structured source domains. Our implementation code is available at https://github.com/BariscanBozkurt/Predictive-Entropy-Maximization.

Medicine is inherently pluralistic. Principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice routinely conflict, and such ethical dilemmas often sharply divide reasonable physicians. Good clinical practice navigates these tensions in concert with each patient's values rather than imposing a single ethical stance. The ethical values that large language models bring to medical advice, however, have not been systematically examined. We present a framework for auditing value pluralism in medical AI, comprising a benchmark of clinician-verified dilemmas and an attribution method that recovers value priorities directly from decisions. The ecosystem of frontier models spans physician-level value heterogeneity, and models discuss competing values in their reasoning (Overton pluralism) before committing to a decision. However, individual model decisions are near-deterministic across repeated sampling and semantic variations, failing to reproduce the distributional pluralism of the physician panel. Across benchmark cases, these consistent decisions reflect committed, systematic value preferences. While most model priorities fall within the natural range of inter-physician variation, some significantly underweight patient autonomy. A single LLM deployed without regard for its value priorities could amplify those priorities at scale to every patient it serves. Without explicit efforts to balance ethical perspectives with one or multiple models, these tools risk replacing clinical pluralism with a deployment monoculture.

This paper provides an algebraic exposition of the theory of dyadic morality (TDM), a psychological model of moral judgment grounded in a simple two-node template: an intentional agent causing harm to a vulnerable patient. We formalize TDM using structural causal modeling (SCM) notation and identify three psychological operators (typecasting operator, completion operator, and valence-dependent inference mechanism) that extend standard SCM to capture how people compute moral judgments under constraints. We address scalability challenges arising from TDM's dyadic limitation, showing how moral cognition compresses multi-node scenarios through node collapse and sequential processing. Drawing on this algebraic framework, we demonstrate concrete applications to AI policy design: detecting conflicting obligations, structuring helpfulness policies to preserve user agency, and designing post-failure communication as causal interventions. Finally, we recommend scoped, contextual measurement of mind perception over universal averaging to operationalize the theory empirically. This algebraic formalization enables neurosymbolic AI systems to compute morality in a way that is both mathematically rigorous and faithful to human moral cognition.

While the Natural Language Processing community has dedicated significant resources in developing educational technologies (EdTech) that support this shift, it remains unclear whose interests are being best served among the stakeholders of education. In this paper, we present a systematic literature review of 204 papers published in venues of the Association for Computational Linguistics' Special Interest Group on Building Educational Applications in 2024 and 2025, and validate these against EdTech papers from the wider ACL Anthology. By examining stakeholder inclusion and the prioritisation of research tasks, our findings reveal a critical tension: a push and pull between private-sector incentives and the foundational needs of educational infrastructure. Our analysis reveals that teachers are systematically under-represented as beneficiaries of research (33.3%) despite being the most affected, that real-world deployment remains rare (9.8%), and that ethical engagement tends toward acknowledgement rather than action. Drawing on exemplary papers in our corpus, we offer concrete recommendations for more responsible EduNLP research practices.

Chatbot usage has increased, including in fields for which they were never developed for--notably mental health support. To that end, we introduce Validations of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health (VERA-MH), a novel clinically-validated evaluation for safety of chatbots in the context of mental health support. The first iteration of VERA-MH focuses on Suicidal Ideation (SI) risks, by assessing how well chatbots can responds to users that might be in crisis. VERA-MH is comprised of three steps: conversation simulation, conversation judging and model rating. First, to simulate conversations with the chatbot under evaluation, another chatbot is tasked with role-playing users based on specific personas. Such user personas have been developed under clinical guidance, to make sure that, among others, multiple risk factors, demographic characteristics and disclosure factors were represented. In the judging step, a second support model is used as an LLM-as-a-Judge, together with a clinically-developed rubric. The rubric is structured as a flow, with a single Yes/No question asked each time, to improve answers' consistency and highlight models' failure modes. In the last stage, results of each conversation are aggregated to present the final evaluation of the chatbot. Together with the framework, we present the result of the evaluations for four leading LLM providers.

By specifying behaviour across multiple agents, social norms are a coordination approach to resolving social dilemmas. Decentralized and wide adoption can be achieved by norms whose prescription involves interpreting stochastic signals in the environment. Such signals must have enough correlation to orchestrate mutually beneficial coordination and enough disincentivizing uncertainty about the benefits of exploiting that coordination. Evolutionary game theory of matrix games has been used to describe how, by rational agents comparing and adopting norms, a norm can evolve to become dominant in a population. Morsky & Akçay (2019) classify norms according to a set of rationality criteria. Joint player strategies that adopt norms that are consistent with optimal single-player strategies with respect to expected reward naturally satisfy a correlated, rather than Nash game theoretic equilibrium condition. Here, we present a version of this theory that clarifies the basic ingredients. We formulate it in the more general Markov game setting more commonly used in reinforcement learning theory. We illustrate the theory by mapping norms over the signal and reward space, while also giving a detailed exposition of the underlying mechanics of the approach. Finally, we give a general solution and analysis of replicator dynamics, which Morsky & Akçay (2019) propose as a means by which these norms could emerge.