Luciano Cavalcante Siebert

Catholijn M. Jonker, Luciano Cavalcante Siebert, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah

With the growing capabilities and pervasiveness of AI systems, societies must collectively choose between reduced human autonomy, endangered democracies and limited human rights, and AI that is aligned to human and social values, nurturing collaboration, resilience, knowledge and ethical behaviour. In this chapter, we introduce the notion of self-reflective AI systems for meaningful human control over AI systems. Focusing on decision support systems, we propose a framework that integrates knowledge from psychology and philosophy with formal reasoning methods and machine learning approaches to create AI systems responsive to human values and social norms. We also propose a possible research approach to design and develop self-reflective capability in AI systems. Finally, we argue that self-reflective AI systems can lead to self-reflective hybrid systems (human + AI), thus increasing meaningful human control and empowering human moral reasoning by providing comprehensible information and insights on possible human moral blind spots.

Ashwin George, Vassil Guenov, Arkady Zgonnikov et al.

Heralding the advent of autonomous vehicles and mobile robots that interact with humans, responsibility in spatial interaction is burgeoning as a research topic. Even though metrics of responsibility tailored to spatial interactions have been proposed, they are mostly focused on the responsibility of individual agents. Metrics of causal responsibility focusing on individuals fail in cases of causal overdeterminism - when many actors simultaneously cause an outcome. To fill the gaps in causal responsibility left by individual-focused metrics, we formulate a metric for the causal responsibility of groups. To identify assertive agents that are causally responsible for the trajectory of an affected agent, we further formalise the types of assertive influences and propose a tiering algorithm for systematically identifying assertive agents. Finally, we use scenario-based simulations to illustrate the benefits of considering groups and how the emergence of group effects vary with interaction dynamics and the proximity of agents.

Ashwin George, Lucas Elbert Suryana, Lorenzo Flipse et al.

Partial driving automation creates a tension: drivers remain legally responsible for vehicle behaviour, yet their active control is significantly reduced. This reduction undermines the engagement and sense of agency needed to intervene safely. Meaningful human control (MHC) has been proposed as a normative framework to address this tension. However, empirical methods for evaluating whether existing systems actually provide MHC remain underdeveloped. In this study, we investigated the extent to which drivers experience MHC when interacting with partially automated driving systems. Twenty-four drivers completed a simulator study involving silent automation failures under two modes - haptic shared control (HSC) and traded control (TC). We derived behavioural metrics from telemetry data, subjective perception scores from post-trial surveys and used them to test hypothesised relations between them derived from the properties of systems under MHC. The confirmatory analysis showed a significant negative correlation between the perception of the automated vehicle (AV) understanding the driver and conflict in steering torques. An exploratory analysis also revealed a surprising positive correlation between reaction times and the perception of sufficient control. Qualitative feedback from open-ended post-experiment questionnaires revealed that mismatches in intentions between the driver and automation, lack of safety, and resistance to driver inputs contribute to the reduction of perceived MHC, while subtle haptic guidance aligned with driver intent had a positive effect. These findings suggest that future designs should prioritise effortless driver interventions, transparent communication of automation intent, and context-sensitive authority allocation to strengthen meaningful human control in partially automated driving.

Antonio Mone, Zuzanna Osika, Florian Felten et al.

Real-world decision-making often requires optimizing multiple competing objectives simultaneously. In reinforcement learning (RL), this is typically addressed by combining reward signals into a single scalar objective via a scalarization function, which can be fragile: small changes in the weights can induce drastically different policies. Multi-objective reinforcement learning (MORL) instead produces sets of policies that explicitly represent trade-offs between objectives. However, these policies are typically presented to the decision maker only through their value vectors, which can obscure substantial behavioral variation: policies that induce distinct trajectories may appear indistinguishable when evaluated solely by expected returns. We propose an exploratory diagnostic workflow that automatically highlights behavioral variation along the Pareto front that objective values alone do not reveal, providing both quantitative and visual tools to support policy inspection. We validate our approach on simple grid examples and scale it to continuous control benchmarks, demonstrating that it remains effective as problem complexity increases.

Enrico Liscio, Luciano C. Siebert, Catholijn M. Jonker et al.

Understanding citizens' values in participatory systems is crucial for citizen-centric policy-making. We envision a hybrid participatory system where participants make choices and provide motivations for those choices, and AI agents estimate their value preferences by interacting with them. We focus on situations where a conflict is detected between participants' choices and motivations, and propose methods for estimating value preferences while addressing detected inconsistencies by interacting with the participants. We operationalize the philosophical stance that "valuing is deliberatively consequential." That is, if a participant's choice is based on a deliberation of value preferences, the value preferences can be observed in the motivation the participant provides for the choice. Thus, we propose and compare value preferences estimation methods that prioritize the values estimated from motivations over the values estimated from choices alone. Then, we introduce a disambiguation strategy that combines Natural Language Processing and Active Learning to address the detected inconsistencies between choices and motivations. We evaluate the proposed methods on a dataset of a large-scale survey on energy transition. The results show that explicitly addressing inconsistencies between choices and motivations improves the estimation of an individual's value preferences. The disambiguation strategy does not show substantial improvements when compared to similar baselines--however, we discuss how the novelty of the approach can open new research avenues and propose improvements to address the current limitations.

Adina Nicola Dobrinoiu, Ana Cristiana Marcu, Amir Homayounirad et al.

Our interpretation of value concepts is shaped by our sociocultural background and lived experiences, and is thus subjective. Recognizing individual value interpretations is important for developing AI systems that can align with diverse human perspectives and avoid bias toward majority viewpoints. To this end, we investigate whether a language model can predict individual value interpretations by leveraging multi-dimensional subjective annotations as a proxy for their interpretive lens. That is, we evaluate whether providing examples of how an individual annotates Sentiment, Emotion, Argument, and Topics (SEAT dimensions) helps a language model in predicting their value interpretations. Our experiment across different zero- and few-shot settings demonstrates that providing all SEAT dimensions simultaneously yields superior performance compared to individual dimensions and a baseline where no information about the individual is provided. Furthermore, individual variations across annotators highlight the importance of accounting for the incorporation of individual subjective annotators. To the best of our knowledge, this controlled setting, although small in size, is the first attempt to go beyond demographics and investigate the impact of annotation behavior on value prediction, providing a solid foundation for future large-scale validation.

Amir Homayounirad, Enrico Liscio, Tong Wang et al.

Aggregating multiple annotations into a single ground truth label may hide valuable insights into annotator disagreement, particularly in tasks where subjectivity plays a crucial role. In this work, we explore methods for identifying subjectivity in recognizing the human values that motivate arguments. We evaluate two main approaches: inferring subjectivity through value prediction vs. directly identifying subjectivity. Our experiments show that direct subjectivity identification significantly improves the model performance of flagging subjective arguments. Furthermore, combining contrastive loss with binary cross-entropy loss does not improve performance but reduces the dependency on per-label subjectivity. Our proposed methods can help identify arguments that individuals may interpret differently, fostering a more nuanced annotation process.

Jan Wehner, Frans Oliehoek, Luciano Cavalcante Siebert

Learning rewards from human behaviour or feedback is a promising approach to aligning AI systems with human values but fails to consistently extract correct reward functions. Interpretability tools could enable users to understand and evaluate possible flaws in learned reward functions. We propose Counterfactual Trajectory Explanations (CTEs) to interpret reward functions in reinforcement learning by contrasting an original with a counterfactual partial trajectory and the rewards they each receive. We derive six quality criteria for CTEs and propose a novel Monte-Carlo-based algorithm for generating CTEs that optimises these quality criteria. Finally, we measure how informative the generated explanations are to a proxy-human model by training it on CTEs. CTEs are demonstrably informative for the proxy-human model, increasing the similarity between its predictions and the reward function on unseen trajectories. Further, it learns to accurately judge differences in rewards between trajectories and generalises to out-of-distribution examples. Although CTEs do not lead to a perfect understanding of the reward, our method, and more generally the adaptation of XAI methods, are presented as a fruitful approach for interpreting learned reward functions.

Markus Peschl, Arkady Zgonnikov, Frans A. Oliehoek et al.

Inferring reward functions from demonstrations and pairwise preferences are auspicious approaches for aligning Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents with human intentions. However, state-of-the art methods typically focus on learning a single reward model, thus rendering it difficult to trade off different reward functions from multiple experts. We propose Multi-Objective Reinforced Active Learning (MORAL), a novel method for combining diverse demonstrations of social norms into a Pareto-optimal policy. Through maintaining a distribution over scalarization weights, our approach is able to interactively tune a deep RL agent towards a variety of preferences, while eliminating the need for computing multiple policies. We empirically demonstrate the effectiveness of MORAL in two scenarios, which model a delivery and an emergency task that require an agent to act in the presence of normative conflicts. Overall, we consider our research a step towards multi-objective RL with learned rewards, bridging the gap between current reward learning and machine ethics literature.

Luciano Cavalcante Siebert, Maria Luce Lupetti, Evgeni Aizenberg et al.

How can humans remain in control of artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems designed to perform tasks autonomously? Such systems are increasingly ubiquitous, creating benefits - but also undesirable situations where moral responsibility for their actions cannot be properly attributed to any particular person or group. The concept of meaningful human control has been proposed to address responsibility gaps and mitigate them by establishing conditions that enable a proper attribution of responsibility for humans; however, clear requirements for researchers, designers, and engineers are yet inexistent, making the development of AI-based systems that remain under meaningful human control challenging. In this paper, we address the gap between philosophical theory and engineering practice by identifying, through an iterative process of abductive thinking, four actionable properties for AI-based systems under meaningful human control, which we discuss making use of two applications scenarios: automated vehicles and AI-based hiring. First, a system in which humans and AI algorithms interact should have an explicitly defined domain of morally loaded situations within which the system ought to operate. Second, humans and AI agents within the system should have appropriate and mutually compatible representations. Third, responsibility attributed to a human should be commensurate with that human's ability and authority to control the system. Fourth, there should be explicit links between the actions of the AI agents and actions of humans who are aware of their moral responsibility. We argue that these four properties will support practically-minded professionals to take concrete steps toward designing and engineering for AI systems that facilitate meaningful human control.