We present EvalMORAAL, a transparent chain-of-thought (CoT) framework that uses two scoring methods (log-probabilities and direct ratings) plus a model-as-judge peer review to evaluate moral alignment in 20 large language models. We assess models on the World Values Survey (55 countries, 19 topics) and the PEW Global Attitudes Survey (39 countries, 8 topics). With EvalMORAAL, top models align closely with survey responses (Pearson’s r ≈ 0.90 on WVS). Yet we find a clear regional difference: Western regions average r=0.82 while non-Western regions average r=0.61 (a 0.21 absolute gap), indicating a persistent regional alignment gap. Our framework adds three parts: (1) two scoring methods for all models to enable fair comparison, (2) a structured CoT protocol with self-consistency checks, and (3) a model-as-judge peer review that flags 348 conflicts using a data-driven threshold. Peer agreement relates to WVS survey alignment (r=0.74, p<.001; PEW r=0.39, n.s.), supporting automated quality checks. These results show real progress toward culture-aware AI while highlighting open challenges for use across regions.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have established them as powerful tools across numerous domains. However, persistent concerns about embedded biases, such as gender, racial, and cultural biases arising from their training data, raise significant questions about the ethical use and societal consequences of these technologies. This study investigates the extent to which LLMs capture cross-cultural differences and similarities in moral perspectives. Specifically, we examine whether LLM outputs align with patterns observed in international survey data on moral attitudes. To this end, we employ three complementary methods: (1) comparing variances in moral scores produced by models versus those reported in surveys, (2) conducting cluster alignment analyses to assess correspondence between country groupings derived from LLM outputs and survey data, and (3) directly probing models with comparative prompts using systematically chosen token pairs. Our results reveal that current LLMs often fail to reproduce the full spectrum of cross-cultural moral variation, tending to compress differences and exhibit low alignment with empirical survey patterns. These findings highlight a pressing need for more robust approaches to mitigate biases and improve cultural representativeness in LLMs. We conclude by discussing the implications for the responsible development and global deployment of LLMs, emphasizing fairness and ethical alignment.

Understanding the sources of variability in annotations is crucial for developing fair NLP systems, especially for tasks like sexism detection where demographic bias is a concern. This study investigates the extent to which annotator demographic features influence labeling decisions compared to text content. Using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model, we quantify this influence, finding that while statistically present, demographic factors account for a minor fraction (~8%) of the observed variance, with tweet content being the dominant factor. We then assess the reliability of Generative AI (GenAI) models as annotators, specifically evaluating if guiding them with demographic personas improves alignment with human judgments. Our results indicate that simplistic persona prompting often fails to enhance, and sometimes degrades, performance compared to baseline models. Furthermore, explainable AI (XAI) techniques reveal that model predictions rely heavily on content-specific tokens related to sexism, rather than correlates of demographic characteristics. We argue that focusing on content-driven explanations and robust annotation protocols offers a more reliable path towards fairness than potentially persona simulation.