Hybrid Approaches for Moral Value Alignment in AI Agents: a Manifesto
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Increasing interest in ensuring the safety of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems calls for novel approaches to embedding morality into autonomous agents. This goal differs qualitatively from traditional task-specific AI methodologies. In this paper, we provide a systematization of existing approaches to the problem of introducing morality in machines - modelled as a continuum. Our analysis suggests that popular techniques lie at the extremes of this continuum - either being fully hard-coded into top-down, explicit rules, or entirely learned in a bottom-up, implicit fashion with no direct statement of any moral principle (this includes learning from human feedback, as applied to the training and finetuning of large language models, or LLMs). Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of each type of methodology, we argue that more hybrid solutions are needed to create adaptable and robust, yet controllable and interpretable agentic systems. To that end, this paper discusses both the ethical foundations (including deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics) and implementations of morally aligned AI systems. We present a series of case studies that rely on intrinsic rewards, moral constraints or textual instructions, applied to either pure-Reinforcement Learning or LLM-based agents. By analysing these diverse implementations under one framework, we compare their relative strengths and shortcomings in developing morally aligned AI systems. We then discuss strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of moral learning agents. Finally, we present open research questions and implications for the future of AI safety and ethics which are emerging from this hybrid framework.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 48 of its 154 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Dec 2023.
Builds on
48 of 154 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 47
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,124
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
- 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
35 more
- 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 706
- 2017Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shieldingcited by 427
- 2019Hidden Trigger Backdoor Attackscited by 359
- 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 312
- 2016Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 298
- 2017Certified Defenses for Data Poisoning Attackscited by 288
- 2021A Practical Guide to Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning and Planningcited by 240
- 2017Learning with Opponent-Learning Awarenesscited by 218
- 2023Playing repeated games with Large Language Modelscited by 213
- 2017Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in Sequential Social Dilemmascited by 206
- 2022Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferencescited by 189
- 2023Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmarkcited by 174
- 2018A Survey and Critique of Multiagent Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 173
- 2022The Debate Over Understanding in AI's Large Language Modelscited by 142
- 2022Offline RL for Natural Language Generation with Implicit Language Q Learningcited by 137
- 2023Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined taskscited by 110
- 2017AI Safety Gridworldscited by 108
- 2018Inequity aversion improves cooperation in intertemporal social dilemmascited by 106
- 2023Levels of AGI for Operationalizing Progress on the Path to AGIcited by 94
- 2021AI in Finance: Challenges, Techniques and Opportunitiescited by 81
- 2021Consequences of Misaligned AIcited by 79
- 2023Strategic Reasoning with Language Modelscited by 64
- 2020Exploring Automatic Diagnosis of COVID-19 from Crowdsourced Respiratory Sound Datacited by 60
- 2021What Would Jiminy Cricket Do? Towards Agents That Behave Morallycited by 57
- 2020Social diversity and social preferences in mixed-motive reinforcement learningcited by 49
- 2015The social dilemma of autonomous vehiclescited by 47
- 2021MORAL: Aligning AI with Human Norms through Multi-Objective Reinforced Active Learningcited by 24
- 2020Reinforcement learning with human advice: a surveycited by 23
- 2019Partner Selection for the Emergence of Cooperation in Multi-Agent Systems Using Reinforcement Learningcited by 20
- 2017Responsible Autonomycited by 18
- 2020Reinforcement Learning Under Moral Uncertaintycited by 16
- 2021Mathematical foundations of moral preferencescited by 15
- 2020Taking Principles Seriously: A Hybrid Approach to Value Alignmentcited by 13
- 2022Quantifying Harmcited by 10
- 2023Modeling Moral Choices in Social Dilemmas with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2025Towards Scientific Intelligence: A Survey of LLM-based Scientific Agentscited by 96
- 2025Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Survey of Architectures, Applications, and Future Directionscited by 46
- 2024Moral Alignment for LLM Agentscited by 39
- 2025Are Rules Meant to be Broken? Understanding Multilingual Moral Reasoning as a Computational Pipeline with UniMoralcited by 14
- 2026Breaking Up with Normatively Monolithic Agency with GRACE: A Reason-Based Neuro-Symbolic Architecture for Safe and Ethical AI Alignmentcited by 5
- 2025Socio-technical aspects of Agentic AIcited by 2
- 2025Normative Moral Pluralism for AI: A Framework for Deliberation in Complex Moral Contextscited by 0
- 2026Breaking Up with Normatively Monolithic Agency with GRACE: A Reason-Based Neuro-Symbolic Architecture for Safe and Ethical AI Alignment15 Jan 2026
- 2025Socio-technical aspects of Agentic AI26 Dec 2025
- 2025Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Survey of Architectures, Applications, and Future Directions29 Oct 2025
- 2025Normative Moral Pluralism for AI: A Framework for Deliberation in Complex Moral Contexts10 Aug 2025
- 2025Towards Scientific Intelligence: A Survey of LLM-based Scientific Agents31 Mar 2025
- 2025Are Rules Meant to be Broken? Understanding Multilingual Moral Reasoning as a Computational Pipeline with UniMoral19 Feb 2025
- 2024Moral Alignment for LLM Agents2 Oct 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Beyond Binary Moral Judgment: Modeling Ethical Pluralism in AI
- 2025Beyond Ethical Alignment: Evaluating LLMs as Artificial Moral Assistants
- 2024Dynamic Normativity: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Value Alignment
- 2026Moral Competence Before Moral Content: Why LLM Agents Lack the Prerequisites for Coherent Alignment
- 2025Black Box Deployed -- Functional Criteria for Artificial Moral Agents in the LLM Era
- 2026Position: Evaluations of AI Moral Reasoning Still Miss Half of the Picture
- 2025Normative Conflicts and Shallow AI Alignment
- 2025Multi-level Value Alignment in Agentic AI Systems: Survey and Perspectives