Probabilistic Aggregation and Targeted Embedding Optimization for Collective Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14625v2
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 13:21:13 GMT
• Title: Probabilistic Aggregation and Targeted Embedding Optimization for Collective Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Authors: Chenchen Yuan, Zheyu Zhang, Shuo Yang, Bardh Prenkaj, Gjergji Kasneci,
• Abstract summary: We propose a framework that synthesizes multiple LLMs' moral judgments into a collectively formulated moral judgment.<n>Our aggregation mechanism fuses continuous moral acceptability scores (beyond binary labels) into a collective probability.<n>Experiments on a large-scale social moral dilemma dataset show our approach builds robust consensus and improves individual model fidelity.
• Score: 14.425718737962102
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive moral reasoning abilities. Yet they often diverge when confronted with complex, multi-factor moral dilemmas. To address these discrepancies, we propose a framework that synthesizes multiple LLMs' moral judgments into a collectively formulated moral judgment, realigning models that deviate significantly from this consensus. Our aggregation mechanism fuses continuous moral acceptability scores (beyond binary labels) into a collective probability, weighting contributions by model reliability. For misaligned models, a targeted embedding-optimization procedure fine-tunes token embeddings for moral philosophical theories, minimizing JS divergence to the consensus while preserving semantic integrity. Experiments on a large-scale social moral dilemma dataset show our approach builds robust consensus and improves individual model fidelity. These findings highlight the value of data-driven moral alignment across multiple models and its potential for safer, more consistent AI systems.

Related papers

• Moral Sycophancy in Vision Language Models [4.1673509006222655]
  Sycophancy in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) refers to their tendency to align with user opinions, often at the expense of moral or factual accuracy.<n>We analyze ten widely-used models on the Moralise and M3oralBench datasets under explicit user disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T06:34:12Z)
• MM-SCALE: Grounded Multimodal Moral Reasoning via Scalar Judgment and Listwise Alignment [48.39756797294967]
  We present MM-SCALE, a dataset for aligning Vision-Language Models with human moral preferences.<n>Each image-scenario pair is annotated with moral acceptability scores and grounded reasoning labels by humans.<n>Our framework provides richer alignment signals and finer calibration of multimodal moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T15:48:00Z)
• Dropouts in Confidence: Moral Uncertainty in Human-LLM Alignment [18.3236201998655]
  Humans display significant uncertainty when confronted with moral dilemmas.<n>Recent studies have confirmed the overly confident tendencies of machine-generated responses.<n>This work examines how uncertainty influences moral decisions in the classical trolley problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T12:13:15Z)
• MORABLES: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fables [50.29407048003165]
  We present MORABLES, a human-verified benchmark built from fables and short stories drawn from historical literature.<n>The main task is structured as multiple-choice questions targeting moral inference, with carefully crafted distractors that challenge models to go beyond shallow, extractive question answering.<n>Our findings show that, while larger models outperform smaller ones, they remain susceptible to adversarial manipulation and often rely on superficial patterns rather than true moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T19:06:10Z)
• The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis [33.50773360893016]
  This paper investigates how leading AI systems prioritize moral outcomes.<n>It shows that Care and Virtue values outcomes were rated most moral, while libertarian choices were consistently penalized.<n>It also highlights the need for explainability and cultural awareness as critical design principles to guide AI toward a transparent, aligned, and future symbiotic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T14:37:57Z)
• The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models [36.573147909548226]
  People increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for moral advice, which may influence humans' decisions.<n>We find that models reproduce human judgments only under high consensus; alignment deteriorates sharply when human disagreement increases.<n>To close this gap, we introduce Dynamic Moral Profiling (DMP), a Dirichlet-based sampling method that conditions model outputs on human-derived value profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T05:26:17Z)
• Preference Learning for AI Alignment: a Causal Perspective [55.2480439325792]
  We frame this problem in a causal paradigm, providing the rich toolbox of causality to identify persistent challenges.<n>Inheriting from the literature of causal inference, we identify key assumptions necessary for reliable generalisation.<n>We illustrate failure modes of naive reward models and demonstrate how causally-inspired approaches can improve model robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T10:45:42Z)
• From Stability to Inconsistency: A Study of Moral Preferences in LLMs [4.12484724941528]
  We introduce a Moral Foundations LLM dataset (MFD-LLM) grounded in Moral Foundations Theory.<n>We propose a novel evaluation method that captures the full spectrum of LLMs' revealed moral preferences by answering a range of real-world moral dilemmas.<n>Our findings reveal that state-of-the-art models have remarkably homogeneous value preferences, yet demonstrate a lack of consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T11:52:50Z)
• Addressing Moral Uncertainty using Large Language Models for Ethical Decision-Making [0.0]
  We present an ethical decision-making framework that refines a pre-trained reinforcement learning (RL) model using a task-agnostic ethical layer.<n>An ethical layer aggregates belief scores from multiple moral perspectives using Belief Jensen-Shannon Divergence and Dempster-Shafer Theory into probability scores that also serve as the shaping reward.<n>This integrated learning framework helps the RL agent navigate moral uncertainty in complex environments and enables it to make morally sound decisions across diverse tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T19:05:55Z)
• M$^3$oralBench: A MultiModal Moral Benchmark for LVLMs [66.78407469042642]
  We introduce M$3$oralBench, the first MultiModal Moral Benchmark for LVLMs.<n>M$3$oralBench expands the everyday moral scenarios in Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs) and employs the text-to-image diffusion model, SD3.0, to create corresponding scenario images.<n>It conducts moral evaluation across six moral foundations of Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and encompasses tasks in moral judgement, moral classification, and moral response.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T05:18:55Z)
• On the Fairness, Diversity and Reliability of Text-to-Image Generative Models [68.62012304574012]
  multimodal generative models have sparked critical discussions on their reliability, fairness and potential for misuse.<n>We propose an evaluation framework to assess model reliability by analyzing responses to global and local perturbations in the embedding space.<n>Our method lays the groundwork for detecting unreliable, bias-injected models and tracing the provenance of embedded biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T09:46:55Z)
• The Moral Mind(s) of Large Language Models [0.0]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit a consistent structure of moral preferences guiding their decisions.<n>Using a probabilistic rationality test, we found that at least one model from each major provider exhibited behavior consistent with approximately stable moral preferences.<n>We then estimated these utility functions and found that most models cluster around neutral moral stances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T15:40:16Z)
• Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models [55.2480439325792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors. This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T16:49:22Z)
• Rethinking Machine Ethics -- Can LLMs Perform Moral Reasoning through the Lens of Moral Theories? [78.3738172874685]
  Making moral judgments is an essential step toward developing ethical AI systems. Prevalent approaches are mostly implemented in a bottom-up manner, which uses a large set of annotated data to train models based on crowd-sourced opinions about morality. This work proposes a flexible top-down framework to steer (Large) Language Models (LMs) to perform moral reasoning with well-established moral theories from interdisciplinary research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T15:57:32Z)
• Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life Anecdotes [72.64975113835018]
  Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics. We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-20T17:34:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.