MEGA Hub

The Ethical Decision Head: Operationalizing Normative Ethics in Autonomous Vehicles via Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

Authors

Do you know Thomas Mbrice?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Ammar Ali?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Sami Mian?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Khai Hern Low?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Eric Chen?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Arshia Aghajani?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Wolf Schäfer?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Amin Shirangi?You can claim authorship or link another user.

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.

Community

00