Auditing LLM-Governed Social Robots with Culture-Specific Moral Gradients

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28345v1
• Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2026 10:22:53 GMT
• Title: Auditing LLM-Governed Social Robots with Culture-Specific Moral Gradients
• Abstract summary: LLM-governed social robots increasingly decide who receives real-world assistance first.<n>As prioritization norms vary across cultures by age, status, and group size, failure to calibrate pluralistically can scale into unequal access.<n>We introduce a gradient-based audit framework for multilingual evaluation of LLM moral trade-off behavior.
• Score: 13.60111351173797
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-governed social robots increasingly decide who receives real-world assistance first. As prioritization norms vary across cultures by age, status, and group size, failure to calibrate pluralistically can scale into unequal access. Yet LLM moral audits remain English-centered, rarely test embodied contexts, leaving pluralistic calibration as an urgent diagnostic gap amid intensifying LLM-robot deployment. We introduce a gradient-based audit framework for multilingual evaluation of LLM moral trade-off behavior against cultural preference gradients. Grounded in nine cross-domain social robotics reviews (>8,000 papers), we derive symmetry-controlled scenarios across care, education, and services, translating the Moral Machine Experiment's "whom to spare" into "whom to assist first" dilemmas with preserved identity trade-offs (many vs. few; young vs. old; higher vs. lower status). We audit four LLMs across four country-language pairs in four prompting regimes (57,600 decisions), benchmarked against country-specific MME preference gradients. Ordinal concordance tests whether models differentiate cultural contexts; a governance typology maps vulnerabilities in gradient differentiation, directional tendency, and deliberation. We find persistent, culturally asymmetric gradient tracking failures that prompting alone cannot reliably correct: quality calibration is nearly twice as strong for Western-language decisions as for Chinese and Japanese; high determinism in majority-first trade-offs often erases cross-cultural gradients; partial sensitivity to age- and status-based norms risks sidelining minorities. Prompting effects are uneven; only contrastive exemplars yield consistent gains, while reasoning-only prompts can worsen tracking. Our results motivate multilingual, pluralistic audits as an LLM-robot pre-deployment gate and suggest model factors are a more robust lever than prompting alone.

Related papers

• Pluralis v0.1: Towards a Multicultural, Multimodal, Multilingual Benchmark for AI Risk and Reliability [46.80780735011334]
  Current AI safety evaluation and benchmarking frameworks rely on Western-centric culture-agnostic defaults that mask critical regional laws, socio-linguistic nuances, and cultural taboos.<n>We introduce Pluralis v0.1: a novel multimodal, multi-regional, and multilingual dataset built from a culture-first perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-07T12:21:52Z)
• Whose Norms? Disentangling Cultural and Personal Alignment in Large Language Models [66.34115263472931]
  Large language models are increasingly used for social decision-making situations that require balancing cultural norms with personal preferences.<n>We introduce PACT, the Personal-Preference and Cultural-Norm Trade-off framework, which evaluates whether models choose to follow a cultural norm or allow personal preferences.<n>Our five-country human study on PACT shows that culture-following in humans is mainly driven by scenario country, with the lowest agreement when participants judge their own cultural contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T22:20:30Z)
• LiveCultureBench: a Multi-Agent, Multi-Cultural Benchmark for Large Language Models in Dynamic Social Simulations [63.478832978278014]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, yet evaluations focus primarily on task success rather than cultural appropriateness or evaluator reliability.<n>We introduce LiveCultureBench, a multi-cultural, dynamic benchmark that embeds LLMs as agents in a simulated town and evaluates them on both task completion and adherence to socio-cultural norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T15:04:16Z)
• LLMs and Cultural Values: the Impact of Prompt Language and Explicit Cultural Framing [0.21485350418225244]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted by users across the globe, who interact with them in a diverse range of languages.<n>We examine how prompt language and cultural framing influence model responses and their alignment with human values in different countries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T02:09:29Z)
• One Model, Many Morals: Uncovering Cross-Linguistic Misalignments in Computational Moral Reasoning [23.56514813420256]
  We investigate how language mediates moral decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our analysis reveals significant inconsistencies in LLMs' moral judgments across languages, often reflecting cultural misalignment.<n>We distill our insights into a structured typology of moral reasoning errors that calls for more culturally-aware AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T19:14:17Z)
• Which Cultural Lens Do Models Adopt? On Cultural Positioning Bias and Agentic Mitigation in LLMs [53.07843733899881]
  Large language models (LLMs) have unlocked a wide range of downstream generative applications.<n>We find that they also risk perpetuating subtle fairness issues tied to culture, positioning their generations from the perspectives of the mainstream US culture.<n>We propose 2 inference-time mitigation methods to resolve these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T12:28:25Z)
• Do Large Language Models Understand Morality Across Cultures? [0.5356944479760104]
  This study investigates the extent to which large language models capture cross-cultural differences and similarities in moral perspectives.<n>Our results reveal that current LLMs often fail to reproduce the full spectrum of cross-cultural moral variation.<n>These findings highlight a pressing need for more robust approaches to mitigate biases and improve cultural representativeness in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T20:25:36Z)
• Cultural Bias in Large Language Models: Evaluating AI Agents through Moral Questionnaires [0.0]
  Large Language Models fail to represent diverse cultural moral frameworks despite their linguistic capabilities.<n>Surprisingly, increased model size doesn't consistently improve cultural representation fidelity.<n>Our results call for more grounded alignment objectives and evaluation metrics to ensure AI systems represent diverse human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T08:59:26Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
  Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP.<n>Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions.<n>We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z)

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.