analiza aiqbench
This research demonstrates how Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback can encode specific normative ethical frameworks, such as Utilitarianism and Kantian duty, into autonomous vehicle decision-making policies. The study reveals a critical divergence between theoretical human prescriptions for ethics and the practical preferences humans exhibit when faced with real-time collision scenarios involving self-sacrifice. Ultimately, it suggests that current RLHF methods capture lived human biases rather than abstract philosophical ideals, presenting significant challenges for deploying morally aligned AI in safety-critical systems.
The Ethical Decision Head: Operationalizing Normative Ethics in Autonomous Vehicles via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
arXiv:2608.16710v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As autonomous vehicles (AVs) approach Level 4 and Level 5 operational capability [SAE International, 2018], their on- board decision systems must handle not only safety-critical locomotion but also their subsequent moral weight. This paper details the Ethical Decision Head (EDH), a deep re- inforcement learning (RL) framework that encodes ethical reasoning as a differentiable reward signal, enabling a pol- icy gradient agent to learn morally-aligned driving behavior in scenarios whose state representation is aligned with the CARLA simulation environment [Dosovitskiy et al., 2017]. Two normative frameworks are instantiated and evaluated: a Utilitarian framework minimizing total casualties and a Kan- tian framework enforcing course maintenance as a categori- cal imperative. The EDH is trained via Proximal Policy Op- timization (PPO) [Schulman et al., 2017] against a Bradley- Terry reward model [Bradley and Terry, 1952] learned from pairwise human preference annotations over 200 collision- imminent scenarios. Results reveal an asymmetry in the learnability of normative ethical frameworks under human su- pervision. The Kantian condition, which reduces to a con- stant prediction task under the codebook, serves as a pipeline control: it confirms training stability and rules out infrastruc- ture failure as an explanation for the utilitarian result. The Utilitarian agent learned something more unsettling: human raters rewarded self-sacrifice over casualty minimization, and the model learned that preference faithfully. This divergence between what humans prescribe in theory and what they re- ward in practice suggests that RLHF does not learn ethics as philosophers define it, but as humans live it.
Abstract:As autonomous vehicles (AVs) approach Level 4 and Level 5 operational capability [SAE International, 2018], their on- board decision systems must handle not only safety-critical locomotion but also their subsequent moral weight. This paper details the Ethical Decision Head (EDH), a deep re- inforcement learning (RL) framework that encodes ethical reasoning as a differentiable reward signal, enabling a pol- icy gradient agent to learn morally-aligned driving behavior in scenarios whose state representation is aligned with the CARLA simulation environment [Dosovitskiy et al., 2017]. Two normative frameworks are instantiated and evaluated: a Utilitarian framework minimizing total casualties and a Kan- tian framework enforcing course maintenance as a categori- cal imperative. The EDH is trained via Proximal Policy Op- timization (PPO) [Schulman et al., 2017] against a Bradley- Terry reward model [Bradley and Terry, 1952] learned from pairwise human preference annotations over 200 collision- imminent scenarios. Results reveal an asymmetry in the learnability of normative ethical frameworks under human su- pervision. The Kantian condition, which reduces to a con- stant prediction task under the codebook, serves as a pipeline control: it confirms training stability and rules out infrastruc- ture failure as an explanation for the utilitarian result. The Utilitarian agent learned something more unsettling: human raters rewarded self-sacrifice over casualty minimization, and the model learned that preference faithfully. This divergence between what humans prescribe in theory and what they re- ward in practice suggests that RLHF does not learn ethics as philosophers define it, but as humans live it.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2608.16710 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2608.16710v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.16710 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 341 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026
Smart Car Researcher Wants to Eliminate Stoplights
IEEE Spectrum · 2 oct. 2026
Hegseth AutoWarCom: who builds it, what the money buys, and why its hardest problem after Minab is the record, not the model
livetradingnews.com · 2 oct. 2026