The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling Moral Choices in Social Dilemmas with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning
Open accessAbstract
Practical uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the real world have demonstrated the importance of embedding moral choices into intelligent agents. They have also highlighted that defining top-down ethical constraints on AI according to any one type of morality is extremely challenging and can pose risks. A bottom-up learning approach may be more appropriate for studying and developing ethical behavior in AI agents. In particular, we believe that an interesting and insightful starting point is the analysis of emergent behavior of Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents that act according to a predefined set of moral rewards in social dilemmas. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of the choices made by intrinsically-motivated RL agents whose rewards are based on moral theories. We aim to design reward structures that are simplified yet representative of a set of key ethical systems. Therefore, we first define moral reward functions that distinguish between consequence- and norm-based agents, between morality based on societal norms or internal virtues, and between single- and mixed-virtue (e.g., multi-objective) methodologies. Then, we evaluate our approach by modeling repeated dyadic interactions between learning moral agents in three iterated social dilemma games (Prisoner's Dilemma, Volunteer's Dilemma and Stag Hunt). We analyze the impact of different types of morality on the emergence of cooperation, defection or exploitation, and the corresponding social outcomes. Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the development of moral agents in artificial and mixed human-AI societies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Unlike existing RL cooperation studies, our approach does not rely on predefined social norms or external incentives.
“Unlike existing RL cooperation studies, our approach does not rely on predefined social norms or external incentives [Ueshima et al. , 2023; Tennant et al. , 2023].”
From Enhancing Cooperation through Selective Interaction and Long-term Experiences in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning (2024) · cites this paper as Tennant et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 · Cited by 1,859
Learning with Opponent-Learning Awareness
Foerster, J., Chen, R. Y., Al-Shedivat, M., Whiteson, S., Abbeel, P., & Mordatch, I. (2018) · International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems · doi:10.65109/hgwa8807 · Cited by 215
Inequity aversion improves cooperation in intertemporal social dilemmas
Hughes, E., Leibo, J. Z., Phillips, M. G., Tuyls, K., Duéñez-Guzmán, E. A., Castañeda, A. G., Dunning, I., Zhu, T., McKee, K. R., Koster, R., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.08884 · Cited by 134
Social Diversity and Social Preferences in Mixed-Motive Reinforcement Learning
McKee, K. R., Gemp, I., McWilliams, B., Duèñez-Guzmán, E. A., Hughes, E., & Leibo, J. Z. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems · doi:10.65109/dnuf7773 · Cited by 33
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ren, T., & Zeng, X.-J. (2024) · Proceedings of the Thirty-ThirdInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2024/22 · Cited by 8
“…emergence of cooperation by integrating spatial and temporal dynamics relevant to realistic scenarios [Ren and Zeng, 2024; Vinitsky et al. , 2023; Tennant et al. , 2023], moving beyond traditional matrix games through the fusion of complex incentive structures [Leibo et al. , 2017; Jaques et al.…”
BackgroundMethod
Metadata
- Authors
- Tennant, E., Hailes, S., & Musolesi, M.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2023-08
- Pages
- 317-325
- OpenAlex
- W4385764866
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 3.72
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- ethical decision-making, social dilemmas, multi-agent reinforcement learning, cooperation, prisoner's dilemma, volunteer's dilemma, stag hunt, virtue ethics, social norms, human-AI interaction, ethical AI
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review