Scaling Laws for Moral Machine Judgment in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17637v2
• Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 01:22:15 GMT
• Title: Scaling Laws for Moral Machine Judgment in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We evaluate 75 large language model configurations (0.27B--1000B parameters) using the Moral Machine framework.<n>We observe a consistent power-law relationship with distance from human preferences decreasing as model size.<n> Extended reasoning models show significantly better alignment, with this effect being more pronounced in smaller models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous systems increasingly require moral judgment capabilities, yet whether these capabilities scale predictably with model size remains unexplored. We systematically evaluate 75 large language model configurations (0.27B--1000B parameters) using the Moral Machine framework, measuring alignment with human preferences in life-death dilemmas. We observe a consistent power-law relationship with distance from human preferences ($D$) decreasing as $D \propto S^{-0.10\pm0.01}$ ($R^2=0.50$, $p<0.001$) where $S$ is model size. Mixed-effects models confirm this relationship persists after controlling for model family and reasoning capabilities. Extended reasoning models show significantly better alignment, with this effect being more pronounced in smaller models (size$\times$reasoning interaction: $p = 0.024$). The relationship holds across diverse architectures, while variance decreases at larger scales, indicating systematic emergence of more reliable moral judgment with computational scale. These findings extend scaling law research to value-based judgments and provide empirical foundations for artificial intelligence governance.

Related papers

• Will Scaling Improve Social Simulation with LLMs? [87.15677770205751]
  Large Language Model (LLM) social simulations are a promising research method, but they are not yet faithful enough to be adopted widely.<n>We use scaling laws to study the relationship between LLMs' compute scale, general capability benchmarks, and the fidelity of social simulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-02T17:30:38Z)
• Act or Escalate? Evaluating Escalation Behavior in Automation with Language Models [0.0]
  We model escalation as a decision under uncertainty.<n>We find marked differences in the implicit thresholds models use to trade off these costs.<n>We then test interventions that target this decision process by varying cost ratios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T19:29:17Z)
• Towards a Comprehensive Scaling Law of Mixture-of-Experts [54.117786590884776]
  We propose a comprehensive and precise joint MoE scaling law that considers all essential factors.<n>Our results demonstrate that the optimal settings for $G$ and $S$ are independent of both the model architecture and data size.<n>Our proposed MoE scaling law could function as an accurate and insightful guidance to facilitate future MoE model design and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T06:35:34Z)
• Evaluation Awareness Scales Predictably in Open-Weights Large Language Models [8.165127822088499]
  We show that evaluation awareness increases predictably with model size.<n>This scaling law enables forecasting deceptive behavior in future larger models and guides the design of scale-aware evaluation strategies for AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-10T06:36:38Z)
• Large-scale moral machine experiment on large language models [0.0]
  We evaluate moral judgments across 52 different Large Language Models (LLMs) in autonomous driving scenarios.<n> proprietary models and open-source models exceeding 10 billion parameters demonstrated relatively close alignment with human judgments.<n>However, model updates did not consistently improve alignment with human preferences, and many LLMs showed excessive emphasis on specific ethical principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T08:36:49Z)
• A Hitchhiker's Guide to Scaling Law Estimation [56.06982415792523]
  Scaling laws predict the loss of a target machine learning model by extrapolating from easier-to-train models with fewer parameters or smaller training sets.<n>We estimate more than 1000 scaling laws, then derive a set of best practices for estimating scaling laws in new model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T17:59:10Z)
• A Dynamical Model of Neural Scaling Laws [79.59705237659547]
  We analyze a random feature model trained with gradient descent as a solvable model of network training and generalization. Our theory shows how the gap between training and test loss can gradually build up over time due to repeated reuse of data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T01:41:38Z)
• Scaling Laws Do Not Scale [54.72120385955072]
  Recent work has argued that as the size of a dataset increases, the performance of a model trained on that dataset will increase. We argue that this scaling law relationship depends on metrics used to measure performance that may not correspond with how different groups of people perceive the quality of models' output. Different communities may also have values in tension with each other, leading to difficult, potentially irreconcilable choices about metrics used for model evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-05T15:32:21Z)
• Misspecification in Inverse Reinforcement Learning [80.91536434292328]
  The aim of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) is to infer a reward function $R$ from a policy $pi$. One of the primary motivations behind IRL is to infer human preferences from human behaviour. This means that they are misspecified, which raises the worry that they might lead to unsound inferences if applied to real-world data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-06T18:21:47Z)
• Exploring Sparse Expert Models and Beyond [51.90860155810848]
  Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models can achieve promising results with outrageous large amount of parameters but constant computation cost. We propose a simple method called expert prototyping that splits experts into different prototypes and applies $k$ top-$1$ routing. This strategy improves the model quality but maintains constant computational costs, and our further exploration on extremely large-scale models reflects that it is more effective in training larger models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T16:12:44Z)

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.