Are You the A-hole? A Fair, Multi-Perspective Ethical Reasoning Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00270v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 22:08:22 GMT
• Title: Are You the A-hole? A Fair, Multi-Perspective Ethical Reasoning Framework
• Abstract summary: We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through weighted Satisfiability (MaxSAT)<n>Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights.<n>Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time.
• Score: 21.161872210116254
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.

Related papers

• Quantifying Consistency in LLM Logical Reasoning via Structural Uncertainty [5.839104770457067]
  Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently.<n>We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T21:39:47Z)
• LC-ERD: Mining Latent Logic for Self-Evolving Reasoning via Consistency-Regulated Reward Decomposition [55.572260012037084]
  We introduce LC-ERD (Logic-Consistent Endogenous Reward Decomposition), a framework framing self-alignment as latent structure mining.<n>We derive a Variational Logic Potential by aggregating consensus from the model's Latent Logic Expertise.<n>Experiments show LC-ERD delivers a robust self-evolution path, uncovering trade-offs between logic consistency and accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T07:27:50Z)
• The Bystander Effect in Multi-Agent Reasoning: Quantifying Cognitive Loafing in Collaborative Interactions [6.357772907811544]
  We evaluate 22,500 deterministic trajectories across 3 dataset contexts with 3 state-of-the-art (SOTA) models.<n>We formalize the textitSovereignty Gap: models frequently compute the correct derivation internally but suffer Alignment Hallucinations''<n>We prove that multi-agent social load is strictly non-commutative; the "brand" identity of the Lead Anchor'' auditor disproportionately dictates the swarm's integrity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T15:13:01Z)
• The Paradox of Robustness: Decoupling Rule-Based Logic from Affective Noise in High-Stakes Decision-Making [1.0671844383558033]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely documented to be sensitive to minor prompt perturbations and prone to sycophantic alignment with user biases.<n>We quantify a robustness gap where LLMs demonstrate 110-300 times greater resistance to narrative manipulation than human subjects.<n>We show that while LLMs may be "brittle" to how a query is formatted, they are remarkably "stable" against why a decision should be biased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T09:17:05Z)
• Milestones over Outcome: Unlocking Geometric Reasoning with Sub-Goal Verifiable Reward [67.00373428443879]
  We introduce a paradigm shift towards subgoal-level evaluation and learning.<n>We first construct GeoGoal, a benchmark synthesized via a rigorous formal verification data engine.<n>We propose the Sub-Goal Verifiable Reward (SGVR) framework, which replaces sparse signals with dense rewards based on the Skeleton Rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T16:17:56Z)
• Hallucination Detection via Internal States and Structured Reasoning Consistency in Large Language Models [7.18947815679122]
  Internal State Probing and Chain-of-Thought Verification are used to detect hallucinations in large language models.<n>We develop a unified framework that bridges the gap between the two methods.<n>Our framework consistently and significantly outperforms strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T15:31:21Z)
• From Ambiguity to Verdict: A Semiotic-Grounded Multi-Perspective Agent for LLM Logical Reasoning [16.381034926435074]
  LogicAgent is a semiotic-square-guided framework designed to jointly address logical complexity and semantic complexity.<n>To overcome the semantic simplicity and low logical complexity of existing datasets, we introduce RepublicQA, a benchmark that reaches college-level difficulty.<n>Experiments demonstrate that LogicAgent achieves state-of-the-art performance on RepublicQA, with a 6.25% average gain over strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T13:31:22Z)
• DivLogicEval: A Framework for Benchmarking Logical Reasoning Evaluation in Large Language Models [58.439517684779936]
  This paper proposes a new classical logic benchmark DivLogicEval, consisting of natural sentences composed of diverse statements in a counterintuitive way.<n>To ensure a more reliable evaluation, we also introduce a new evaluation metric that mitigates the influence of bias and randomness inherent in Large Language Models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T04:40:46Z)
• Causal Prompting for Implicit Sentiment Analysis with Large Language Models [21.39152516811571]
  Implicit Sentiment Analysis (ISA) aims to infer sentiment that is implied rather than explicitly stated.<n>Recent prompting-based methods using Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in ISA.<n>We propose CAPITAL, a causal prompting framework that incorporates front-door adjustment into CoT reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T03:01:09Z)
• PixelThink: Towards Efficient Chain-of-Pixel Reasoning [70.32510083790069]
  PixelThink is a simple yet effective scheme that integrates externally estimated task difficulty and internally measured model uncertainty.<n>It learns to compress reasoning length in accordance with scene complexity and predictive confidence.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach improves both reasoning efficiency and overall segmentation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:55:49Z)
• Learning to Reason via Mixture-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning [56.24256916896427]
  Mixture-of-Thought (MoT) is a framework that enables LLMs to reason across three complementary modalities: natural language, code, and truth-table.<n>MoT adopts a two-phase design: (1) self-evolving MoT training, which jointly learns from filtered, self-generated rationales across modalities; and (2) MoT inference, which fully leverages the synergy of three modalities to produce better predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:54Z)
• LINC: A Neurosymbolic Approach for Logical Reasoning by Combining Language Models with First-Order Logic Provers [60.009969929857704]
  Logical reasoning is an important task for artificial intelligence with potential impacts on science, mathematics, and society. In this work, we reformulating such tasks as modular neurosymbolic programming, which we call LINC. We observe significant performance gains on FOLIO and a balanced subset of ProofWriter for three different models in nearly all experimental conditions we evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:58:40Z)

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.