Large language models (LLMs) increasingly issue judgments read as binary verdicts, and a growing literature reports such judgments shifting under logically irrelevant changes of wording - among them an amplified yes-no bias on moral dilemmas, absent in humans. A single framing cannot say what such a shift is: in a yes/no question the word "no" is at once logical verdict, lexical token, and last-printed option.
arXiv:2607. 05552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly issue judgments read as binary verdicts, and a growing literature reports such judgments shifting under logically irrelevant changes of wording - among them an amplified yes-no bias on moral dilemmas, absent in humans.
arXiv:2601. 21433v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing.
The paper investigates how large language models encode moral knowledge by training linear probes for each Moral Foundations Theory category and analyzing their geometric relationships. It finds that the model’s moral directions are largely independent yet share a common component, indicating integration rather than collapse into a single detector. This structure is consistent across architectures, emerges early in pre‑training, and reflects corpus statistics rather than the individualizing/binding distinction of Moral Foundations Theory.
The study investigates how large language models encode moral knowledge by training linear probes for each category of Moral Foundations Theory. It finds that the model’s representations for different moral foundations occupy distinct, largely independent dimensions yet share a common positive component, indicating an integrated but nuanced moral structure. This geometry is consistent across model architectures and scales, emerges early in pre‑training, and reflects corpus statistics rather than the individualizing/binding distinction of the theory.
arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.
arXiv:2608. 12368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs).
arXiv:2607. 02104v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise -- to rank responses, select models, or triage papers.
arXiv:2609.14759v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Alignment applied after pretraining is shallow in a measurable way: a single direction in a model's residual stream can be edited out, and the model...
arXiv:2607. 02104v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as cheap, scalable judges that compare candidate outputs pairwise.
The paper reports on a deployed multi‑agent tender‑response system that uses an open‑weights language model under sovereignty constraints. In a blind comparison, the system’s answers were judged at least as good as human‑written bids in 40 of 55 sections, with only a few gaps attributable to missing knowledge rather than writing quality. The study also demonstrates an asymmetry in conditioning: while structural markup improves reading tasks, converting instruction material from prose to nested XML degrades answer quality, and naming forbidden constructions concentrates defects.
arXiv:2605. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased.
arXiv:2605. 22714v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are routinely used as automated evaluators: to review code, moderate content, or score outputs, often with many items passing through one conversation.