Every Act Has Its Price: Compressed Moral Composition in Frontier LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11232v1
• Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 02:36:10 GMT
• Title: Every Act Has Its Price: Compressed Moral Composition in Frontier LLMs
• Abstract summary: We introduce **Moral Trolley Arena**, a two-stage blind ELO benchmark for measuring how LLMs compose moral evidence.<n>The single-scene arena first calibrates individual moral acts from a 229-scenario corpus across five Moral Foundations Theory foundations.<n>The composite arena then combines calibrated acts into two-act moral items over a controlled intensity grid and measures the resulting composite preferences.
• Score: 9.605269355662093
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• How Language Models Organize and Structure Moral Knowledge [1.0829694003408499]
  We train six independent linear probes on open-weight language models.<n>We find directions neither collapse into a single moral detector nor isolate from one another.<n>The model represents moral tension itself, not a pre-resolved judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-27T17:30:30Z)
• CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models [10.221486703870996]
  Key question in moral judgement is how people decide what matters most when moral principles conflict.<n>Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) remain limited.<n>We introduce CORDA, a benchmark for evaluating hierarchical, harm-centred moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T10:56:30Z)
• User identity conditions moral wrongness ratings in non-reasoning large language models [0.0]
  We evaluate AI value alignment in two large language models (LLMs)<n>We ask models for wrongness ratings from 0-100 on ten common-morality rules from Gert's moral framework.<n>The results show that moral judgments vary with the user's role across both models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-08T16:22:27Z)
• Mechanistic Origin of Moral Indifference in Language Models [17.89411060814224]
  Existing behavioral alignment techniques for Large Language Models (LLMs) often neglect the discrepancy between surface compliance and internal unaligned representations.<n>We verify and remedy this indifference in LLMs' latent representations, utilizing 251k moral vectors constructed upon Prototype Theory and the Social-Chemistry-101 dataset.<n>We then employ Sparse Autoencoders on Qwen3-8B, isolate mono-semantic moral features, and targetedly reconstruct their topological relationships to align with ground-truth moral vectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T17:59:17Z)
• 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)
• The Straight and Narrow: Do LLMs Possess an Internal Moral Path? [25.256151938852728]
  Current alignment techniques often act as superficial guardrails, leaving the intrinsic moral representations of Large Language Models largely untouched.<n>We bridge this gap by leveraging Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to map and manipulate the fine-grained moral landscape of LLMs.<n>We propose Adaptive Moral Fusion (AMF), a dynamic inference-time intervention that synergizes probe detection with vector injection to tackle the safety-helpfulness trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T11:42:00Z)
• 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)
• When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas [68.79830818369683]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>There is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives.<n>We introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T16:19:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Are Large Language Models Moral Hypocrites? A Study Based on Moral Foundations [0.5278650675825148]
  We investigate whether state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) are moral hypocrites. We employ two research instruments based on the Moral Foundations Theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T21:27:32Z)
• 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)

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.