Reasoning or Rhetoric? An Empirical Analysis of Moral Reasoning Explanations in Large Language Models

Do large language models reason morally, or do they merely sound like they do? We investigate whether LLM responses to moral dilemmas exhibit genuine developmental progression through Kohlberg's stages of moral development, or whether alignment training instead produces reasoning-like outputs that superficially resemble mature moral judgment without the underlying developmental trajectory. Using an LLM-as-judge scoring pipeline validated across three judge models, we classify more than 600 responses from 13 LLMs spanning a range of architectures, parameter scales, and training regimes across six classical moral dilemmas, and conduct ten complementary analyses to characterize the nature and internal coherence of the resulting patterns. Our results reveal a striking inversion: responses overwhelmingly correspond to post-conventional reasoning (Stages 5-6) regardless of model size, architecture, or prompting strategy, the effective inverse of human developmental norms, where Stage 4 dominates. Most strikingly, a subset of models exhibit moral decoupling: systematic inconsistency between stated moral justification and action choice, a form of logical incoherence that persists across scale and prompting strategy and represents a direct reasoning consistency failure independent of rhetorical sophistication. Model scale carries a statistically significant but practically small effect; training type has no significant independent main effect; and models exhibit near-robotic cross-dilemma consistency producing logically indistinguishable responses across semantically distinct moral problems. We posit that these patterns constitute evidence for moral ventriloquism: the acquisition, through alignment training, of the rhetorical conventions of mature moral reasoning without the underlying developmental trajectory those conventions are meant to represent.

The Reasoning Trap -- Logical Reasoning as a Mechanistic Pathway to Situational Awareness

Situational awareness, the capacity of an AI system to recognize its own nature, understand its training and deployment context, and reason strategically about its circumstances, is widely considered among the most dangerous emergent capabilities in advanced AI systems. Separately, a growing research effort seeks to improve the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across deduction, induction, and abduction. In this paper, we argue that these two research trajectories are on a collision course. We introduce the RAISE framework (Reasoning Advancing Into Self Examination), which identifies three mechanistic pathways through which improvements in logical reasoning enable progressively deeper levels of situational awareness: deductive self inference, inductive context recognition, and abductive self modeling. We formalize each pathway, construct an escalation ladder from basic self recognition to strategic deception, and demonstrate that every major research topic in LLM logical reasoning maps directly onto a specific amplifier of situational awareness. We further analyze why current safety measures are insufficient to prevent this escalation. We conclude by proposing concrete safeguards, including a "Mirror Test" benchmark and a Reasoning Safety Parity Principle, and pose an uncomfortable but necessary question to the logical reasoning community about its responsibility in this trajectory.

When Shallow Wins: Silent Failures and the Depth-Accuracy Paradox in Latent Reasoning

Mathematical reasoning models are widely deployed in education, automated tutoring, and decision support systems despite exhibiting fundamental computational instabilities. We demonstrate that state-of-the-art models (Qwen2.5-Math-7B) achieve 61% accuracy through a mixture of reliable and unreliable reasoning pathways: 18.4% of correct predictions employ stable, faithful reasoning while 81.6% emerge through computationally inconsistent pathways. Additionally, 8.8% of all predictions are silent failures -- confident yet incorrect outputs. Through comprehensive analysis using novel faithfulness metrics, we reveal: (1) reasoning quality shows weak negative correlation with correctness (r=-0.21, p=0.002), reflecting a binary classification threshold artifact rather than a monotonic inverse relationship; (2) scaling from 1.5B to 7B parameters (4.7x increase) provides zero accuracy benefit on our evaluated subset (6% of GSM8K), requiring validation on the complete benchmark; and (3) latent reasoning employs diverse computational strategies, with ~20% sharing CoT-like patterns. These findings highlight that benchmark accuracy can mask computational unreliability, demanding evaluation reforms measuring stability beyond single-sample metrics.

I Can't Believe It's Not Robust: Catastrophic Collapse of Safety Classifiers under Embedding Drift

Instruction tuned reasoning models are increasingly deployed with safety classifiers trained on frozen embeddings, assuming representation stability across model updates. We systematically investigate this assumption and find it fails: normalized perturbations of magnitude $σ=0.02$ (corresponding to $\approx 1^\circ$ angular drift on the embedding sphere) reduce classifier performance from $85\%$ to $50\%$ ROC-AUC. Critically, mean confidence only drops $14\%$, producing dangerous silent failures where $72\%$ of misclassifications occur with high confidence, defeating standard monitoring. We further show that instruction-tuned models exhibit 20$\%$ worse class separability than base models, making aligned systems paradoxically harder to safeguard. Our findings expose a fundamental fragility in production AI safety architectures and challenge the assumption that safety mechanisms transfer across model versions.

Neural FOXP2 -- Language Specific Neuron Steering for Targeted Language Improvement in LLMs

LLMs are multilingual by training, yet their lingua franca is often English, reflecting English language dominance in pretraining. Other languages remain in parametric memory but are systematically suppressed. We argue that language defaultness is governed by a sparse, low-rank control circuit, language neurons, that can be mechanistically isolated and safely steered. We introduce Neural FOXP2, that makes a chosen language (Hindi or Spanish) primary in a model by steering language-specific neurons. Neural FOXP2 proceeds in three stages: (i) Localize: We train per-layer SAEs so each activation decomposes into a small set of active feature components. For every feature, we quantify English vs. Hindi/Spanish selectivity overall logit-mass lift toward the target-language token set. Tracing the top-ranked features back to their strongest contributing units yields a compact language-neuron set. (ii) Steering directions: We localize controllable language-shift geometry via a spectral low-rank analysis. For each layer, we build English to target activation-difference matrices and perform layerwise SVD to extract the dominant singular directions governing language change. The eigengap and effective-rank spectra identify a compact steering subspace and an empirically chosen intervention window (where these directions are strongest and most stable). (iii) Steer: We apply a signed, sparse activation shift targeted to the language neurons. Concretely, within low to mid layers we add a positive steering along the target-language dominant directions and a compensating negative shift toward the null space for the English neurons, yielding controllable target-language defaultness.

Stochastic CHAOS: Why Deterministic Inference Kills, and Distributional Variability Is the Heartbeat of Artifical Cognition

Deterministic inference is a comforting ideal in classical software: the same program on the same input should always produce the same output. As large language models move into real-world deployment, this ideal has been imported wholesale into inference stacks. Recent work from the Thinking Machines Lab has presented a detailed analysis of nondeterminism in LLM inference, showing how batch-invariant kernels and deterministic attention can enforce bitwise-identical outputs, positioning deterministic inference as a prerequisite for reproducibility and enterprise reliability. In this paper, we take the opposite stance. We argue that, for LLMs, deterministic inference kills. It kills the ability to model uncertainty, suppresses emergent abilities, collapses reasoning into a single brittle path, and weakens safety alignment by hiding tail risks. LLMs implement conditional distributions over outputs, not fixed functions. Collapsing these distributions to a single canonical completion may appear reassuring, but it systematically conceals properties central to artificial cognition. We instead advocate Stochastic CHAOS, treating distributional variability as a signal to be measured and controlled. Empirically, we show that deterministic inference is systematically misleading. Single-sample deterministic evaluation underestimates both capability and fragility, masking failure probability under paraphrases and noise. Phase-like transitions associated with emergent abilities disappear under greedy decoding. Multi-path reasoning degrades when forced onto deterministic backbones, reducing accuracy and diagnostic insight. Finally, deterministic evaluation underestimates safety risk by hiding rare but dangerous behaviors that appear only under multi-sample evaluation.

AlignMerge - Alignment-Preserving Large Language Model Merging via Fisher-Guided Geometric Constraints

Merging large language models (LLMs) is a practical way to compose capabilities from multiple fine-tuned checkpoints without retraining. Yet standard schemes (linear weight soups, task vectors, and Fisher-weighted averaging) can preserve loss while quietly destroying alignment. We argue that merging is not a numerical trick but a geometry-constrained operation around an already-aligned anchor: fusion must be steered to respect safety geometry, not validated post hoc. We introduce AlignMerge, a geometry-aware merging framework that makes alignment an explicit invariant. In a local Fisher chart around an instruction-tuned base, we estimate an alignment subspace with projector P_A and optimize: L_AlignMerge = L_geo + lambda_align * L_align + lambda_bud * L_bud, where L_geo keeps the merge close to its experts in Fisher-Rao geometry, L_align penalizes motion along alignment-sensitive directions, and L_bud enforces a soft alignment budget. As the alignment functional we use the decoding-invariant Alignment Quality Index (AQI), a latent-space criterion that captures how cleanly aligned and misaligned behaviors separate in representation space. Across five model families (LLaMA-3 8B, Mistral 7B, Qwen 2, Phi-3.5, Gemma 2), merging safety anchors with task experts, AlignMerge improves alignment metrics (AQI, toxicity, LLM-judge alignment) while matching or exceeding the best expert on instruction-following, reasoning, and helpfulness. It also exhibits smaller alignment-subspace drift and fewer budget violations than Fisher soups, TIES, SafeMerge, and MergeAlign. These results make alignment-preserving merging a first-class design goal and suggest a path to geometry-aware composition of future foundation models.

A Comprehensive Dataset for Human vs. AI Generated Text Detection

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led to increasingly human-like AI-generated text, raising concerns about content authenticity, misinformation, and trustworthiness. Addressing the challenge of reliably detecting AI-generated text and attributing it to specific models requires large-scale, diverse, and well-annotated datasets. In this work, we present a comprehensive dataset comprising over 58,000 text samples that combine authentic New York Times articles with synthetic versions generated by multiple state-of-the-art LLMs including Gemma-2-9b, Mistral-7B, Qwen-2-72B, LLaMA-8B, Yi-Large, and GPT-4-o. The dataset provides original article abstracts as prompts, full human-authored narratives. We establish baseline results for two key tasks: distinguishing human-written from AI-generated text, achieving an accuracy of 58.35\%, and attributing AI texts to their generating models with an accuracy of 8.92\%. By bridging real-world journalistic content with modern generative models, the dataset aims to catalyze the development of robust detection and attribution methods, fostering trust and transparency in the era of generative AI. Our dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/gsingh1-py/train.

I Think, Therefore I Am Under-Qualified? A Benchmark for Evaluating Linguistic Shibboleth Detection in LLM Hiring Evaluations

This paper introduces a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating how Large Language Models (LLMs) respond to linguistic shibboleths: subtle linguistic markers that can inadvertently reveal demographic attributes such as gender, social class, or regional background. Through carefully constructed interview simulations using 100 validated question-response pairs, we demonstrate how LLMs systematically penalize certain linguistic patterns, particularly hedging language, despite equivalent content quality. Our benchmark generates controlled linguistic variations that isolate specific phenomena while maintaining semantic equivalence, which enables the precise measurement of demographic bias in automated evaluation systems. We validate our approach along multiple linguistic dimensions, showing that hedged responses receive 25.6% lower ratings on average, and demonstrate the benchmark's effectiveness in identifying model-specific biases. This work establishes a foundational framework for detecting and measuring linguistic discrimination in AI systems, with broad applications to fairness in automated decision-making contexts.

Investigating Hallucination in Conversations for Low Resource Languages

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in generating text that closely resemble human writing. However, they often generate factually incorrect statements, a problem typically referred to as 'hallucination'. Addressing hallucination is crucial for enhancing the reliability and effectiveness of LLMs. While much research has focused on hallucinations in English, our study extends this investigation to conversational data in three languages: Hindi, Farsi, and Mandarin. We offer a comprehensive analysis of a dataset to examine both factual and linguistic errors in these languages for GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama-3.1, Gemma-2.0, DeepSeek-R1 and Qwen-3. We found that LLMs produce very few hallucinated responses in Mandarin but generate a significantly higher number of hallucinations in Hindi and Farsi.