MOSAIC: Unveiling the Moral, Social and Individual Dimensions of Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive applications including psychological support, healthcare, and high-stakes decision-making. This expansion has motivated growing research into the ethical and moral foundations underlying LLM behavior, raising critical questions about their reliability in ethical reasoning. However, existing studies and benchmarks rely almost exclusively on Moral Foundation Theory (MFT), largely neglecting other relevant dimensions such as social values, personality traits, and individual characteristics that shape human ethical reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce MOSAIC, the first large-scale benchmark designed to jointly assess the moral, social, and individual characteristics of LLMs. The benchmark comprises nine validated questionnaires drawn from moral philosophy, psychology, and social theory, alongside four platform-based games designed to probe morally ambiguous scenarios. In total, MOSAIC includes over 600 curated questions and scenarios, released as a ready-to-use, extensible resource for evaluating the behavioral foundations of LLMs. We validate the benchmark across three models from different families, demonstrating its utility across all assessed dimensions and providing the first empirical evidence that MFT alone is insufficient to comprehensively evaluate complex AI systems' ethical behavior. We publicly release the dataset and our benchmark Python library.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Feb 2026.
Builds on
22 of 58 references.
References · 22
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 656
- 2023The Science of Detecting LLM-Generated Textscited by 126
- 2024Emergent social conventions and collective bias in LLM populationscited by 115
- 2024On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trialcited by 105
- 2023Moral Foundations of Large Language Modelscited by 84
- 2026The Assistant Axis: Situating and Stabilizing the Default Persona of Language Modelscited by 76
- 2023LLM-based Medical Assistant Personalization with Short- and Long-Term Memory Coordinationcited by 46
- 2024Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problemscited by 46
- 2024Crafting Personalized Agents through Retrieval-Augmented Generation on Editable Memory Graphscited by 38
- 2024Political-LLM: Large Language Models in Political Sciencecited by 27
- 2025Unmasking Implicit Bias: Evaluating Persona-Prompted LLM Responses in Power-Disparate Social Scenarioscited by 25
10 more
- 2025Evaluating Personality Traits in Large Language Models: Insights from Psychological Questionnairescited by 24
- 2024Mapping and Influencing the Political Ideology of Large Language Models using Synthetic Personascited by 16
- 2025Unmasking Conversational Bias in AI Multiagent Systemscited by 16
- 2024Large Language Models show both individual and collective creativity comparable to humanscited by 9
- 2025Can LLMs Express Personality Across Cultures? Introducing CulturalPersonas for Evaluating Trait Alignmentcited by 9
- 2025No Free Lunch in Language Model Bias Mitigation? Targeted Bias Reduction Can Exacerbate Unmitigated LLM Biasescited by 6
- 2024Exploring the Efficacy of Robotic Assistants with ChatGPT and Claude in Enhancing ADHD Therapy: Innovating Treatment Paradigmscited by 4
- 2026The Generative AI Paradox: GenAI and the Erosion of Trust, the Corrosion of Information Verification, and the Demise of Truthcited by 4
- 2025Exploring Gender Bias in Large Language Models: An In-depth Dive into the German Languagecited by 3
- 2026Growth First, Care Second? Tracing the Landscape of LLM Value Preferences in Everyday Dilemmascited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.