MORABLES: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fables

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.12371v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 19:06:10 GMT
• Title: MORABLES: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fables
• Authors: Matteo Marcuzzo, Alessandro Zangari, Andrea Albarelli, Jose Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 50.29407048003165
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As LLMs excel on standard reading comprehension benchmarks, attention is shifting toward evaluating their capacity for complex abstract reasoning and inference. Literature-based benchmarks, with their rich narrative and moral depth, provide a compelling framework for evaluating such deeper comprehension skills. Here, we present MORABLES, a human-verified benchmark built from fables and short stories drawn from historical literature. 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. To further stress-test model robustness, we introduce adversarial variants designed to surface LLM vulnerabilities and shortcuts due to issues such as data contamination. 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. This brittleness results in significant self-contradiction, with the best models refuting their own answers in roughly 20% of cases depending on the framing of the moral choice. Interestingly, reasoning-enhanced models fail to bridge this gap, suggesting that scale - not reasoning ability - is the primary driver of performance.

Related papers

• CausalFlip: A Benchmark for LLM Causal Judgment Beyond Semantic Matching [50.65932158912512]
  We propose a new causal reasoning benchmark, CausalFlip, to encourage the development of new large language models.<n>CaulFlip consists of causal judgment questions built over event triples that could form different confounder, chain, and collider relations.<n>We evaluate LLMs under multiple training paradigms, including answer-only training, explicit Chain-of-Thought supervision, and a proposed internalized causal reasoning approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-23T18:06:15Z)
• Self-Consistency as a Free Lunch: Reducing Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models via Self-Reflection [71.8243083897721]
  Vision-language models often hallucinate details, generating non-existent objects or inaccurate attributes that compromise output reliability.<n>We present a novel framework that leverages the model's self-consistency between long responses and short answers to generate preference pairs for training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T10:37:11Z)
• Chain-of-Code Collapse: Reasoning Failures in LLMs via Adversarial Prompting in Code Generation [0.3495246564946556]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in tasks requiring complex reasoning.<n>Do these models truly reason, or do they merely exploit shallow statistical patterns?<n>We introduce Chain-of-Code Collapse, where we investigate the robustness of reasoning LLMs by introducing a suite of semantically faithful yet adversarially structured prompt perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T02:43:46Z)
• 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)
• What's Missing in Vision-Language Models? Probing Their Struggles with Causal Order Reasoning [26.671128120554457]
  causal reasoning is fundamental to solving complex high-level reasoning tasks.<n>Existing benchmarks often include a mixture of reasoning questions.<n>We introduce VQA-Causal and VCR-Causal to isolate and rigorously evaluate causal reasoning abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-01T07:17:46Z)
• A Closer Look at Bias and Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness of Large (Vision) Language Models [53.18562650350898]
  Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning enhances performance of large language models.<n>We present the first comprehensive study of CoT faithfulness in large vision-language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T18:55:05Z)
• Reasoning Towards Fairness: Mitigating Bias in Language Models through Reasoning-Guided Fine-Tuning [12.559028963968247]
  We investigate the crucial relationship between a model's reasoning ability and fairness.<n>We find that larger models with stronger reasoning abilities exhibit substantially lower stereotypical bias.<n>We introduce ReGiFT, a novel approach that extracts structured reasoning traces from advanced reasoning models and infuses them into models that lack such capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T03:21:51Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas [0.0]
  We evaluate large language models (LLMs) on complex, everyday moral dilemmas sourced from the "Am I the Asshole" (AITA) community on Reddit.<n>Our results demonstrate that large language models exhibit distinct patterns of moral judgment, varying substantially from human evaluations on the AITA subreddit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T01:29:46Z)
• Optimizing Language Model's Reasoning Abilities with Weak Supervision [48.60598455782159]
  We present textscPuzzleBen, a weakly supervised benchmark that comprises 25,147 complex questions, answers, and human-generated rationales. A unique aspect of our dataset is the inclusion of 10,000 unannotated questions, enabling us to explore utilizing fewer supersized data to boost LLMs' inference capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T07:39:15Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• SaGE: Evaluating Moral Consistency in Large Language Models [15.079905222871071]
  We show that even state-of-the-art Large Language Models are morally inconsistent in their generations. We propose an information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SaGE) to measure a model's moral consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T11:23:21Z)
• Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models [31.238220405009617]
  Exploiting large language models (LLMs) to tackle reasoning has garnered growing attention.<n>It still remains highly challenging to achieve satisfactory results in complex logical problems, characterized by plenty of premises within the context and requiring multi-hop reasoning.<n>In this work, we first examine the mechanism from the perspective of information flow and reveal that LLMs confront difficulties akin to human-like cognitive biases when dealing with disordered and irrelevant content in reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T04:47:49Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)

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.