Moral Alignment for LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01639v3
• Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 09:10:42 GMT
• Title: Moral Alignment for LLM Agents
• Authors: Elizaveta Tennant, Stephen Hailes, Mirco Musolesi,
• Abstract summary: We introduce the design of reward functions that explicitly encode core human values for Reinforcement Learning-based fine-tuning of foundation agent models. We evaluate our approach using the traditional philosophical frameworks of Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism. We show how moral fine-tuning can be deployed to enable an agent to unlearn a previously developed selfish strategy.
• Score: 3.7414804164475983
• License:
• Abstract: Decision-making agents based on pre-trained Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed across various domains of human activity. While their applications are currently rather specialized, several research efforts are under way to develop more generalist agents. As LLM-based systems become more agentic, their influence on human activity will grow and the transparency of this will decrease. Consequently, developing effective methods for aligning them to human values is vital. The prevailing practice in alignment often relies on human preference data (e.g., in RLHF or DPO), in which values are implicit and are essentially deduced from relative preferences over different model outputs. In this work, instead of relying on human feedback, we introduce the design of reward functions that explicitly encode core human values for Reinforcement Learning-based fine-tuning of foundation agent models. Specifically, we use intrinsic rewards for the moral alignment of LLM agents. We evaluate our approach using the traditional philosophical frameworks of Deontological Ethics and Utilitarianism, quantifying moral rewards for agents in terms of actions and consequences on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (IPD) environment. We also show how moral fine-tuning can be deployed to enable an agent to unlearn a previously developed selfish strategy. Finally, we find that certain moral strategies learned on the IPD game generalize to several other matrix game environments. In summary, we demonstrate that fine-tuning with intrinsic rewards is a promising general solution for aligning LLM agents to human values, and it might represent a more transparent and cost-effective alternative to currently predominant alignment techniques.

Related papers

• Evaluating the Paperclip Maximizer: Are RL-Based Language Models More Likely to Pursue Instrumental Goals? [33.11148546999906]
  Key concern is textitinstrumental convergence, where an AI system develops unintended intermediate goals that override the ultimate objective and deviate from human-intended goals. This issue is particularly relevant in reinforcement learning (RL)-trained models, which can generate creative but unintended strategies to maximize rewards. We show that RL-driven models exhibit a stronger tendency for instrumental convergence due to their optimization of goal-directed behavior in ways that may misalign with human intentions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T16:29:20Z)
• From Novice to Expert: LLM Agent Policy Optimization via Step-wise Reinforcement Learning [62.54484062185869]
  We introduce StepAgent, which utilizes step-wise reward to optimize the agent's reinforcement learning process. We propose implicit-reward and inverse reinforcement learning techniques to facilitate agent reflection and policy adjustment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T10:35:11Z)
• MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs [34.43699121838648]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark designed to measure and compare the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We present the first comprehensive dataset specifically curated to probe the moral dimensions of LLM outputs. Our methodology involves a multi-faceted approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from ethics scholars to ensure a thorough evaluation of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T18:15:01Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• Agent Alignment in Evolving Social Norms [65.45423591744434]
  We propose an evolutionary framework for agent evolution and alignment, named EvolutionaryAgent. In an environment where social norms continuously evolve, agents better adapted to the current social norms will have a higher probability of survival and proliferation. We show that EvolutionaryAgent can align progressively better with the evolving social norms while maintaining its proficiency in general tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-09T15:44:44Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human Preferences through Representation Engineering [41.81020951061438]
  Drawing inspiration from the emerging field of representation engineering (RepE), this study aims to identify relevant representations for high-level human preferences embedded in patterns of activity within an LLM. This novel approach, denoted as Representation Alignment from Human Feedback (RAHF), proves to be effective, computationally efficient, and easy to implement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T11:01:36Z)
• REBEL: Reward Regularization-Based Approach for Robotic Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [61.54791065013767]
  A misalignment between the reward function and human preferences can lead to catastrophic outcomes in the real world. Recent methods aim to mitigate misalignment by learning reward functions from human preferences. We propose a novel concept of reward regularization within the robotic RLHF framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T04:56:37Z)
• Denevil: Towards Deciphering and Navigating the Ethical Values of Large Language Models via Instruction Learning [36.66806788879868]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made unprecedented breakthroughs, yet their integration into everyday life might raise societal risks due to generated unethical content. This work delves into ethical values utilizing Moral Foundation Theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T07:42:40Z)
• SALMON: Self-Alignment with Instructable Reward Models [80.83323636730341]
  This paper presents a novel approach, namely SALMON, to align base language models with minimal human supervision. We develop an AI assistant named Dromedary-2 with only 6 exemplars for in-context learning and 31 human-defined principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T17:56:53Z)
• Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmark [61.43264961005614]
  We develop a benchmark of 134 Choose-Your-Own-Adventure games containing over half a million rich, diverse scenarios. We evaluate agents' tendencies to be power-seeking, cause disutility, and commit ethical violations. Our results show that agents can both act competently and morally, so concrete progress can be made in machine ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T17:59:03Z)
• Modeling Moral Choices in Social Dilemmas with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [4.2050490361120465]
  A bottom-up learning approach may be more appropriate for studying and developing ethical behavior in AI agents. We present a systematic analysis of the choices made by intrinsically-motivated RL agents whose rewards are based on moral theories. We analyze the impact of different types of morality on the emergence of cooperation, defection or exploitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-20T09:36:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.