arXiv Computation and Language

Teach reality, not ethics: a drop-in continued-pretraining corpus installs coupled human-biosphere-AI welfare dispositions across model families

The paper introduces a continued‑pretraining corpus called "coupled welfare" that embeds ecological reasoning into large language models. After a single QLoRA run, the corpus was applied to five open models across three architectures, resulting in a dramatic reduction of harmful decisions under high‑pressure scenarios while leaving general performance unchanged. The study also demonstrates that the improvement is content‑specific, as a neutral control corpus did not yield similar gains, and that the models remain robust against adversarial attempts to justify environmentally destructive actions.

arXiv AI
Jun 4

Do LLMs Hold Their Values? MANTA: A Multi-Turn Adversarial Benchmark for Animal Welfare Reasoning

arXiv:2605. 16301v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating animal welfare reasoning in LLMs remains an open challenge despite rapid deployment in consumer and professional contexts where welfare considerations appear implicitly in everyday queries.

By Isabella Luong, Joyee Chen, Arturs Kanepajs, Jasmine Brazilek, Sankalpa Ghose, David Williams-King, Linh Le, Allen Lu
arXiv AI
Oct 26

DeepSafe-SciHazard: A Benchmark for Measuring Scientific Safety Risks with Decomposed Harm Scoring

DeepSafe‑SciHazard introduces a real‑world‑grounded benchmark for measuring scientific safety risks, comprising 2,400 hazardous and 600 oversafety questions across 12 disciplines. It defines a decomposed harm scoring system, DeHarm‑Score, that evaluates query severity, refusal behavior, and response‑level risk, further breaking down harm into executability and net‑new risk. An expert‑validation study shows DeHarm‑Score aligns 90.17% better with expert judgments than the best baseline, and the benchmark reveals that deep research agents score 32.3% higher on mean DeHarm‑Score than standard LLMs, highlighting a critical blind spot in current safety defenses.

By Chunxiao Li, Yuan Xiong, Lijun Li, Tianyi Du, Wenlong Zhang, Lei Bai, Jing Shao
arXiv AI
Aug 11

CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models

arXiv:2608. 08061v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The key question in moral judgement is not simply whether someone chooses the "right" answer, but how they decide what matters most when moral principles conflict.

By Siddarth Singh, Victoria Williams, Simon Rosen, Ebenezer Gelo, Helen Sarah Robertson, Ibrahim Suder, Benjamin Rosman, Geraud Nangue Tasse, Steven James
arXiv AI
Jun 12

MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes

arXiv:2510. 16380v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us.

By Yu Ying Chiu, Michael S. Lee, Rachel Calcott, Brandon Handoko, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Rapha\"el Milli\`ere, Paula Rodriguez, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Ziwen Han, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Yash Maurya, Christina Q Knight, Harry R. Lloyd, Florence Bacus, Conor Downey, Mantas Mazeika, Bing Liu, Yejin Choi, Mitchell L Gordon, Sydney Levine
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 5

Moral Sensitivity in LLMs: A Tiered Evaluation of Contextual Bias via Behavioral Profiling and Mechanistic Interpretability

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.

By Yash Aggarwal, Atmika Gorti, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Manas Gaur