Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi

Jackson Trager, Alireza S. Ziabari, Elnaz Rahmati et al.

Moral framing and sentiment can affect a variety of online and offline behaviors, including donation, environmental action, political engagement, and protest. Various computational methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been used to detect moral sentiment from textual data, but achieving strong performance in such subjective tasks requires large, hand-annotated datasets. Previous corpora annotated for moral sentiment have proven valuable, and have generated new insights both within NLP and across the social sciences, but have been limited to Twitter. To facilitate improving our understanding of the role of moral rhetoric, we present the Moral Foundations Reddit Corpus, a collection of 16,123 English Reddit comments that have been curated from 12 distinct subreddits, hand-annotated by at least three trained annotators for 8 categories of moral sentiment (i.e., Care, Proportionality, Equality, Purity, Authority, Loyalty, Thin Morality, Implicit/Explicit Morality) based on the updated Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) framework. We evaluate baselines using large language models (Llama3-8B, Ministral-8B) in zero-shot, few-shot, and PEFT settings, comparing their performance to fine-tuned encoder-only models like BERT. The results show that LLMs continue to lag behind fine-tuned encoders on this subjective task, underscoring the ongoing need for human-annotated moral corpora for AI alignment evaluation. Keywords: moral sentiment annotation, moral values, moral foundations theory, multi-label text classification, large language models, benchmark dataset, evaluation and alignment resource

Suhaib Abdurahman, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Chenxiao Yu et al.

Human conflict is often attributed to threats against material conditions and symbolic values, yet it remains unclear how they interact and which dominates. Progress is limited by weak causal control, ethical constraints, and scarce temporal data. We address these barriers using simulations of large language model (LLM)-driven agents in virtual societies, independently varying realistic and symbolic threat while tracking actions, language, and attitudes. Representational analyses show that the underlying LLM encodes realistic threat, symbolic threat, and hostility as distinct internal states, that our manipulations map onto them, and that steering these states causally shifts behavior. Our simulations provide a causal account of threat-driven conflict over time: realistic threat directly increases hostility, whereas symbolic threat effects are weaker, fully mediated by ingroup bias, and increase hostility only when realistic threat is absent. Non-hostile intergroup contact buffers escalation, and structural asymmetries concentrate hostility among majority groups.

Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Suhaib Abdurahman, Zhivar Sourati et al.

Socio-cognitive benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) often fail to predict real-world behavior, even when models achieve high benchmark scores. Prior work has attributed this evaluation-deployment gap to problems of measurement and validity. While these critiques are insightful, we argue that they overlook a more fundamental issue: many socio-cognitive evaluations proceed without an explicit theoretical specification of the target capability, leaving the assumptions linking task performance to competence implicit. Without this theoretical grounding, benchmarks that exercise only narrow subsets of a capability are routinely misinterpreted as evidence of broad competence: a gap that creates a systemic validity illusion by masking the failure to evaluate the capability's other essential dimensions. To address this gap, we make two contributions. First, we diagnose and formalize this theory gap as a foundational failure that undermines measurement and enables systematic overgeneralization of benchmark results. Second, we introduce the Theory Trace Card (TTC), a lightweight documentation artifact designed to accompany socio-cognitive evaluations, which explicitly outlines the theoretical basis of an evaluation, the components of the target capability it exercises, its operationalization, and its limitations. We argue that TTCs enhance the interpretability and reuse of socio-cognitive evaluations by making explicit the full validity chain, which links theory, task operationalization, scoring, and limitations, without modifying benchmarks or requiring agreement on a single theory.

Chenxiao Yu, Bowen Yi, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce human-like moral judgments, but it is unclear whether this reflects an internal conceptual structure or superficial ``moral mimicry.'' Using Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) as an analytic framework, we study how moral foundations are encoded, organized, and expressed within two instruction-tuned LLMs: Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. We employ a multi-level approach combining (i) layer-wise analysis of MFT concept representations and their alignment with human moral perceptions, (ii) pretrained sparse autoencoders (SAEs) over the residual stream to identify sparse features that support moral concepts, and (iii) causal steering interventions using dense MFT vectors and sparse SAE features. We find that both models represent and distinguish moral foundations in a structured, layer-dependent way that aligns with human judgments. At a finer scale, SAE features show clear semantic links to specific foundations, suggesting partially disentangled mechanisms within shared representations. Finally, steering along either dense vectors or sparse features produces predictable shifts in foundation-relevant behavior, demonstrating a causal connection between internal representations and moral outputs. Together, our results provide mechanistic evidence that moral concepts in LLMs are distributed, layered, and partly disentangled, suggesting that pluralistic moral structure can emerge as a latent pattern from the statistical regularities of language alone.

Alireza S. Ziabari, Nona Ghazizadeh, Zhivar Sourati et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive reasoning abilities, yet their reliance on structured step-by-step processing reveals a critical limitation. In contrast, human cognition fluidly adapts between intuitive, heuristic (System 1) and analytical, deliberative (System 2) reasoning depending on the context. This difference between human cognitive flexibility and LLMs' reliance on a single reasoning style raises a critical question: while human fast heuristic reasoning evolved for its efficiency and adaptability, is a uniform reasoning approach truly optimal for LLMs, or does its inflexibility make them brittle and unreliable when faced with tasks demanding more agile, intuitive responses? To answer these questions, we explicitly align LLMs to these reasoning styles by curating a dataset with valid System 1 and System 2 answers, and evaluate their performance across reasoning benchmarks. Our results reveal an accuracy-efficiency trade-off: System 2-aligned models excel in arithmetic and symbolic reasoning, while System 1-aligned models perform better in commonsense reasoning tasks. To analyze the reasoning spectrum, we interpolated between the two extremes by varying the proportion of alignment data, which resulted in a monotonic change in accuracy. A mechanistic analysis of model responses shows that System 1 models employ more definitive outputs, whereas System 2 models demonstrate greater uncertainty. Building on these findings, we further combine System 1- and System 2-aligned models based on the entropy of their generations, without additional training, and obtain a dynamic model that outperforms across nearly all benchmarks. This work challenges the assumption that step-by-step reasoning is always optimal and highlights the need for adapting reasoning strategies based on task demands.

Zhivar Sourati, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Meltem Ozcan et al.

Language is far more than a communication tool. A wealth of information - including but not limited to the identities, psychological states, and social contexts of its users - can be gleaned through linguistic markers, and such insights are routinely leveraged across diverse fields ranging from product development and marketing to healthcare. In four studies utilizing experimental and observational methods, we demonstrate that the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) as writing assistants is linked to notable declines in linguistic diversity and may interfere with the societal and psychological insights language provides. We show that while the core content of texts is retained when LLMs polish and rewrite texts, not only do they homogenize writing styles, but they also alter stylistic elements in a way that selectively amplifies certain dominant characteristics or biases while suppressing others - emphasizing conformity over individuality. By varying LLMs, prompts, classifiers, and contexts, we show that these trends are robust and consistent. Our findings highlight a wide array of risks associated with linguistic homogenization, including compromised diagnostic processes and personalization efforts, the exacerbation of existing divides and barriers to equity in settings like personnel selection where language plays a critical role in assessing candidates' qualifications, communication skills, and cultural fit, and the undermining of efforts for cultural preservation.

Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Pooya Razavi, Sonya Powers

As educational systems evolve, ensuring that assessment items remain aligned with content standards is essential for maintaining fairness and instructional relevance. Traditional human alignment reviews are accurate but slow and labor-intensive, especially across large item banks. This study examines whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can accelerate this process without sacrificing accuracy. Using over 12,000 item-skill pairs in grades K-5, we tested three LLMs (GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4o) across three tasks that mirror real-world challenges: identifying misaligned items, selecting the correct skill from the full set of standards, and narrowing candidate lists prior to classification. In Study 1, GPT-4o-mini correctly identified alignment status in approximately 83-94% of cases, including subtle misalignments. In Study 2, performance remained strong in mathematics but was lower for reading, where standards are more semantically overlapping. Study 3 demonstrated that pre-filtering candidate skills substantially improved results, with the correct skill appearing among the top five suggestions more than 95% of the time. These findings suggest that LLMs, particularly when paired with candidate filtering strategies, can significantly reduce the manual burden of item review while preserving alignment accuracy. We recommend the development of hybrid pipelines that combine LLM-based screening with human review in ambiguous cases, offering a scalable solution for ongoing item validation and instructional alignment.

Jackson Trager, Francielle Vargas, Diego Alves et al.

Ensuring the moral reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a growing concern as these systems are used in socially sensitive tasks. Nevertheless, current evaluation benchmarks present two major shortcomings: a lack of annotations that justify moral classifications, which limits transparency and interpretability; and a predominant focus on English, which constrains the assessment of moral reasoning across diverse cultural settings. In this paper, we introduce MFTCXplain, a multilingual benchmark dataset for evaluating the moral reasoning of LLMs via multi-hop hate speech explanation using the Moral Foundations Theory. MFTCXplain comprises 3,000 tweets across Portuguese, Italian, Persian, and English, annotated with binary hate speech labels, moral categories, and text span-level rationales. Our results show a misalignment between LLM outputs and human annotations in moral reasoning tasks. While LLMs perform well in hate speech detection (F1 up to 0.836), their ability to predict moral sentiments is notably weak (F1 < 0.35). Furthermore, rationale alignment remains limited mainly in underrepresented languages. Our findings show the limited capacity of current LLMs to internalize and reflect human moral reasoning