Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41709005›Full record

ReviewNature2026

A roadmap for evaluating moral competence in large language models.

Julia Haas, Sophie Bridgers, Arianna Manzini, Benjamin Henke, Joshua May, Sydney Levine, Laura Weidinger, Murray Shanahan, Kristian Lum, Iason Gabriel and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Julia HaasGoogle DeepMind, London, UK. juliahaas@google.com.ORCID 0000-0003-2330-1132
Sophie Bridgers *Google DeepMind, London, UK.
Arianna Manzini *Google DeepMind, London, UK.
Benjamin Henke *Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Joshua MayDepartment of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8604-479X
Sydney LevineGoogle DeepMind, New York, NY, USA.
Laura WeidingerGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.
Murray ShanahanGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.
Kristian LumGoogle DeepMind, New York, NY, USA.
Iason GabrielGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7552-4576
William IsaacGoogle DeepMind, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The question of whether large language models (LLMs) can exhibit moral capabilities is of growing interest and urgency, as these systems are deployed in sensitive roles such as companionship and medical advising, and will increasingly be tasked with making decisions and taking actions on behalf of humans. These trends require moving beyond evaluating for mere moral performance, the ability to produce morally appropriate outputs, to evaluating for moral competence, the ability to produce morally appropriate outputs based on morally relevant considerations. Assessing moral competence is critical for predicting future model behaviour, establishing appropriate public trust and justifying moral attributions. However, both the unique architectures of LLMs and the complexity of morality itself introduce fundamental challenges. Here we identify three such challenges: the facsimile problem, whereby models may imitate reasoning without genuine understanding; moral multidimensionality, whereby moral decisions are influenced by a range of context-sensitive relevant moral and non-moral considerations; and moral pluralism, which demands a new standard for globally deployed artificial intelligence. We provide a roadmap for tackling these challenges, advocating for a suite of adversarial and confirmatory evaluations that will enable us to work towards a more scientifically grounded understanding and, in turn, a more responsible attribution of moral competence to LLMs.

Indexed as

Large Language ModelsMoralsArtificial IntelligenceDecision MakingHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.