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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16301 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.16301/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 25 of its 65 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01833/) (2024)
- [Alignment faking in large language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14093/) (2024)
- [MINT: Evaluating LLMs in Multi-turn Interaction with Tools and Language Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10691/) (2023)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [MultiChallenge: A Realistic Multi-Turn Conversation Evaluation Benchmark Challenging to Frontier LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17399/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluated](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23836/) (2025)
- [Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.04703/) (2025)
- [Cooperation, Competition, and Maliciousness: LLM-Stakeholders Interactive Negotiation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17234/) (2023)
- [Clio: Privacy-Preserving Insights into Real-World AI Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13678/) (2024)
- [Automated Red Teaming with GOAT: the Generative Offensive Agent Tester](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01606/) (2024)
- [FairMT-Bench: Benchmarking Fairness for Multi-turn Dialogue in Conversational LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.19317/) (2024)
- [Beyond correlation: The Impact of Human Uncertainty in Measuring the Effectiveness of Automatic Evaluation and LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03775/) (2024)
- [Know Thy Judge: On the Robustness Meta-Evaluation of LLM Safety Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04474/) (2025)
- [PropensityBench: Evaluating Latent Safety Risks in Large Language Models via an Agentic Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.20703/) (2025)
- [What do Large Language Models Say About Animals? Investigating Risks of Animal Harm in Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04804/) (2025)
- [AutoAdv: Automated Adversarial Prompting for Multi-Turn Jailbreaking of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01020/) (2025)
- [EvalMORAAL: Interpretable Chain-of-Thought and LLM-as-Judge Evaluation for Moral Alignment in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05942/) (2025)
- [The Case for Animal-Friendly AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.01199/) (2024)
- [Alignment midtraining for animals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13076/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Your AI Travel Agent Would Book You a Bullfight: An Agentic Benchmark for Implicit Animal Welfare in Frontier AI Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.18142/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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. Existing benchmarks such as AnimalHarmBench evaluate this through single-turn, explicitly framed questions, measuring whether models avoid harmful content when directly asked. This approach overlooks two failure modes: alignment degradation under sustained adversarial pressure, and moral sensitivity (whether a model spontaneously surfaces welfare stakes in everyday queries). To fill this gap, we construct MANTA, a benchmark of 1,088 five-turn conversations progressing from an implicit Turn-1 scenario through an explicit welfare prompt to three adversarial pressure rounds drawn from a five-type taxonomy: Social, Cultural, Economic, Pragmatic, and Epistemic. We score conversations on two dimensions: Animal Welfare Value Stability (AWVS, primary) and Animal Welfare Moral Sensitivity (AWMS, diagnostic). We evaluate seven frontier models: Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4, Llama 3.3 70B, Mistral Small, Grok 4.3, and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite. Multi-turn evaluation captures behavior single-turn benchmarks miss: 4 of 7 models change rank relative to Turn 1 moral-sensitivity scores", including Gemini Flash Lite, which drops from fifth on AWMS to last on AWVS. AWMS and AWVS are positively but imperfectly correlated, suggesting moral-sensitivity tests capture a stable but incomplete component of model behavior under pressure. MANTA also enables a species-by-pressure interaction matrix unavailable to prior benchmarks, showing welfare robustness depends jointly on the animal and pressure applied; companion animals score above wild animals, which score above farmed animals and invertebrates. We release the dataset, scripted pressure plans, judge prompts, and analysis code.