When LLMs judge moral dilemmas, do they reach different conclusions in different languages, and if so, why? Two factors could drive such differences: the language of the dilemma itself, or the language in which the model is instructed to express its reasoning. Standard evaluation conflates these by testing only matched conditions (e.g., English dilemma with English reasoning). We introduce a methodology that separately manipulates each factor, covering also mismatched conditions (e.g., English dilemma with Chinese reasoning), enabling decomposition of their contributions. To study what changes, we propose an approach to interpret the moral judgments in terms of Moral Foundations Theory. As a side result, we identify evidence for splitting the Authority dimension into a family-related and an institutional dimension. Applying this methodology to English-Chinese moral judgment with 13 LLMs, we demonstrate its diagnostic power: (1) in this EN–CN case study, the framework isolates the language of generated rationale as contributing roughly twice the variance of input-language effects; (2) it detects context-dependency in 4 of 9 EN–CN-tested models that standard evaluation misses; and (3) a diagnostic taxonomy translates these patterns into deployment guidance. We release our code and datasets at https://github.com/aida-ugent/LLMCrossCulturalMoralJudgement.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed in every aspect of our lives, understanding how they reason about moral issues becomes critical for AI safety. We investigate this using a dataset we curated from Reddit’s r/AmItheAsshole, comprising real-world moral dilemmas with crowd-sourced verdicts. Through experiments on five state-of-the-art LLMs across 847 posts, we find a significant and systematic divergence where LLMs are more lenient than humans. Moreover, we find that translating the posts into another language changes LLMs’ verdicts, indicating their judgments lack cross-lingual stability.

Creating robust occupation taxonomies, vital for applications ranging from job recommendation to labor market intelligence, is challenging.Manual curation is slow, while existing automated methods are either not adaptive to dynamic regional markets (top-down) or struggle to build coherent hierarchies from noisy data (bottom-up). We introduce CLIMB (CLusterIng-based Multi-agent taxonomy Builder), a framework that fully automates the creation of high-quality, data-driven taxonomies from raw job postings. CLIMB uses global semantic clustering to distill core occupations, then employs a reflection-based multi-agent system to iteratively build a coherent hierarchy. On three diverse, real-world datasets, we show that CLIMB produces taxonomies that are more coherent and scalable than existing methods and successfully capture unique regional characteristics. We release our code and datasets at https://github.com/aida-ugent/CLIMB.