Morality is Contextual: Learning Interpretable Moral Contexts from Human Data with Probabilistic Clustering and Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21439v1
• Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 22:16:04 GMT
• Title: Morality is Contextual: Learning Interpretable Moral Contexts from Human Data with Probabilistic Clustering and Large Language Models
• Authors: Geoffroy Morlat, Marceau Nahon, Augustin Chartouny, Raja Chatila, Ismael T. Freire, Mehdi Khamassi,
• Abstract summary: We present COMETH (Contextual Organization of Moral Evaluation from Textual Human inputs), a framework that integrates a probabilistic context learner with LLM-based semantic abstraction and human moral evaluations.<n>We curate an empirically grounded dataset of 300 scenarios across six core actions and collect ternary judgments from N=101 participants.<n>A preprocessing pipeline standardizes actions via an LLM filter and MiniLM embeddings with K-means, producing robust, reproducible core-action clusters.<n>To generalize and explain predictions, a Generalization module extracts concise, non-evaluative binary contextual features and learns feature weights in a transparent likelihood-
• Score: 0.6003448250024276
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Moral actions are judged not only by their outcomes but by the context in which they occur. We present COMETH (Contextual Organization of Moral Evaluation from Textual Human inputs), a framework that integrates a probabilistic context learner with LLM-based semantic abstraction and human moral evaluations to model how context shapes the acceptability of ambiguous actions. We curate an empirically grounded dataset of 300 scenarios across six core actions (violating Do not kill, Do not deceive, and Do not break the law) and collect ternary judgments (Blame/Neutral/Support) from N=101 participants. A preprocessing pipeline standardizes actions via an LLM filter and MiniLM embeddings with K-means, producing robust, reproducible core-action clusters. COMETH then learns action-specific moral contexts by clustering scenarios online from human judgment distributions using principled divergence criteria. To generalize and explain predictions, a Generalization module extracts concise, non-evaluative binary contextual features and learns feature weights in a transparent likelihood-based model. Empirically, COMETH roughly doubles alignment with majority human judgments relative to end-to-end LLM prompting (approx. 60% vs. approx. 30% on average), while revealing which contextual features drive its predictions. The contributions are: (i) an empirically grounded moral-context dataset, (ii) a reproducible pipeline combining human judgments with model-based context learning and LLM semantics, and (iii) an interpretable alternative to end-to-end LLMs for context-sensitive moral prediction and explanation.

Related papers

• Computational Turing Test Reveals Systematic Differences Between Human and AI Language [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the social sciences to simulate human behavior.<n>Existing validation efforts rely heavily on human-judgment-based evaluations.<n>This paper introduces a computational Turing test to assess how closely LLMs approximate human language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T08:56:37Z)
• Bayesian Evaluation of Large Language Model Behavior [11.847752638476257]
  It is increasingly important to evaluate how text generation systems based on large language models behave.<n>Existing approaches to evaluation often neglect statistical uncertainty quantification.<n>We present two case studies applying a Bayesian approach for quantifying uncertainty in binary evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T19:51:46Z)
• Advancing Automated Ethical Profiling in SE: a Zero-Shot Evaluation of LLM Reasoning [1.389448546196977]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into software engineering (SE) tools for tasks that extend beyond code synthesis.<n>We present a fully automated framework for assessing ethical reasoning capabilities across 16 LLMs in a zero-shot setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T13:28:26Z)
• 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 simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Context is Key: A Benchmark for Forecasting with Essential Textual Information [87.3175915185287]
  "Context is Key" (CiK) is a forecasting benchmark that pairs numerical data with diverse types of carefully crafted textual context.<n>We evaluate a range of approaches, including statistical models, time series foundation models, and LLM-based forecasters.<n>We propose a simple yet effective LLM prompting method that outperforms all other tested methods on our benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:56:08Z)
• Log Probabilities Are a Reliable Estimate of Semantic Plausibility in Base and Instruction-Tuned Language Models [50.15455336684986]
  We evaluate the effectiveness of LogProbs and basic prompting to measure semantic plausibility. We find that LogProbs offers a more reliable measure of semantic plausibility than direct zero-shot prompting. We conclude that, even in the era of prompt-based evaluations, LogProbs constitute a useful metric of semantic plausibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T22:08:44Z)
• Can Large Language Models Understand Context? [17.196362853457412]
  This paper introduces a context understanding benchmark by adapting existing datasets to suit the evaluation of generative models. Experimental results indicate that pre-trained dense models struggle with understanding more nuanced contextual features when compared to state-of-the-art fine-tuned models. As LLM compression holds growing significance in both research and real-world applications, we assess the context understanding of quantized models under in-context-learning settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-01T18:55:29Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Understanding Emergent In-Context Learning from a Kernel Regression Perspective [55.95455089638838]
  Large language models (LLMs) have initiated a paradigm shift in transfer learning.<n>This paper proposes a kernel-regression perspective of understanding LLMs' ICL bahaviors when faced with in-context examples.<n>We find that during ICL, the attention and hidden features in LLMs match the behaviors of a kernel regression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T06:45:02Z)

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.