Large language models often display heterogeneous moral preferences across settings. We study inference-time steering toward a desired ethical framework while preserving general competence. We present Convergent-Divergent Routing, which traces and edits minimal branch points inside transformer blocks where ethical-framework-related pathways first converge and then diverge. Gating non-target branches at these loci blocks the downstream propagation while leaving upstream computations intact. We find that this intervention alone increases targeted ethical-framework reasoning. To achieve fine-grained control, we adapt Common Spatial Patterns to the residual stream and extract, for each branch-point layer, a pair of directions that discriminate between utilitarian and deontological frameworks. We then introduce Dual Logit Calibration, a closed-form, minimum-ℓ₂-norm update that moves the residual within this two-dimensional subspace so the resulting directional projections align with user-specified preference weights. Experiments on real-life moral dilemmas show that our method reliably achieves preference calibration and largely preserves general capabilities, outperforming recent baselines while providing an interpretable mechanism.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive moral reasoning abilities. Yet they often diverge when confronted with complex, multi-factor moral dilemmas. To address these discrepancies, we propose a framework that synthesizes multiple LLMs’ moral judgments into a collectively formulated moral judgment, realigning models that deviate significantly from this consensus. Our aggregation mechanism fuses continuous moral acceptability scores (beyond binary labels) into a collective probability, weighting contributions by model reliability. For misaligned models, a targeted embedding-optimization procedure fine-tunes token embeddings for moral philosophical theories, minimizing JS divergence to the consensus while preserving semantic integrity. Experiments on a large-scale social moral dilemma dataset show our approach builds robust consensus and improves individual model fidelity. These findings highlight the value of data-driven moral alignment across multiple models and its potential for safer, more consistent AI systems.

A multitude of industries depend on accurate and reasonable tabular data augmentation for their business processes. Contemporary methodologies in generating tabular data revolve around utilizing Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) or fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLM). However, GAN-based approaches are documented to produce samples with common-sense errors attributed to the absence of external knowledge. On the other hand, LLM-based methods exhibit a limited capacity to capture the disparities between synthesized and actual data distribution due to the absence of feedback from a discriminator during training. Furthermore, the decoding of LLM-based generation introduces gradient breakpoints, impeding the backpropagation of loss from a discriminator, thereby complicating the integration of these two approaches. To solve this challenge, we propose using proximal policy optimization (PPO) to apply GANs, guiding LLMs to enhance the probability distribution of tabular features. This approach enables the utilization of LLMs as generators for GANs in synthesizing tabular data. Our experiments demonstrate that PPO leads to an approximately 4% improvement in the accuracy of models trained on synthetically generated data over state-of-the-art across three real-world datasets.