Formal Ethical Obligations in Reinforcement Learning Agents: Verification and Policy Updates
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When designing agents for operation in uncertain environments, designers need tools to automatically reason about what agents ought to do, how that conflicts with what is actually happening, and how a policy might be modified to remove the conflict. These obligations include ethical and social obligations, permissions and prohibitions, which constrain how the agent achieves its mission and executes its policy. We propose a new deontic logic, Expected Act Utilitarian deontic logic, for enabling this reasoning at design time: for specifying and verifying the agent's strategic obligations, then modifying its policy from a reference policy to meet those obligations. Unlike approaches that work at the reward level, working at the logical level increases the transparency of the trade-offs. We introduce two algorithms: one for model-checking whether an RL agent has the right strategic obligations, and one for modifying a reference decision policy to make it meet obligations expressed in our logic. We illustrate our algorithms on DAC-MDPs which accurately abstract neural decision policies, and on toy gridworld environments.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Jul 2024.
Builds on
6 of 23 references.
References · 6
- 2017Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shieldingcited by 427
- 2019Reinforcement Learning in Healthcare: A Surveycited by 308
- 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning framework for Autonomous Drivingcited by 224
- 2021Recent Advances in Reinforcement Learning in Financecited by 102
- 2017A Low-Cost Ethics Shaping Approach for Designing Reinforcement Learning Agentscited by 18
- 2020DeepAveragers: Offline Reinforcement Learning by Solving Derived Non-Parametric MDPscited by 16
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2.
2 papers.