SEED-SET: Scalable Evolving Experimental Design for System-level Ethical Testing
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As autonomous systems such as drones, become increasingly deployed in high-stakes, human-centric domains, it is critical to evaluate the ethical alignment since failure to do so imposes imminent danger to human lives, and long term bias in decision-making. Automated ethical benchmarking of these systems is understudied due to the lack of ubiquitous, well-defined metrics for evaluation, and stakeholder-specific subjectivity, which cannot be modeled analytically. To address these challenges, we propose SEED-SET, a Bayesian experimental design framework that incorporates domain-specific objective evaluations, and subjective value judgments from stakeholders. SEED-SET models both evaluation types separately with hierarchical Gaussian Processes, and uses a novel acquisition strategy to propose interesting test candidates based on learnt qualitative preferences and objectives that align with the stakeholder preferences. We validate our approach for ethical benchmarking of autonomous agents on two applications and find our method to perform the best. Our method provides an interpretable and efficient trade-off between exploration and exploitation, by generating up to 2× optimal test candidates compared to baselines, with 1.25× improvement in coverage of high dimensional search spaces.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 64 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Mar 2026.
Builds on
30 of 64 references.
References · 30
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
- 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Modelscited by 957
- 2024Self-Rewarding Language Modelscited by 654
- 2018GPyTorch: Blackbox Matrix-Matrix Gaussian Process Inference with GPU Accelerationcited by 603
- 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systemscited by 154
- 2024Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluatorscited by 146
- 2021Can Machines Learn Morality? The Delphi Experimentcited by 140
- 2019The Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelinescited by 129
- 2023Modern Bayesian Experimental Designcited by 121
- 2024AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policiescited by 69
18 more
- 2025Position: Evaluating Generative AI Systems Is a Social Science Measurement Challengecited by 61
- 2025Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025cited by 58
- 2025Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluationcited by 54
- 2019Bayesian Optimization of Composite Functionscited by 45
- 2024Open Problems in Technical AI Governancecited by 45
- 2022Preference Exploration for Efficient Bayesian Optimization with Multiple Outcomescited by 41
- 2015The Variational Gaussian Processcited by 29
- 2024Risks from Language Models for Automated Mental Healthcare: Ethics and Structure for Implementationcited by 27
- 2024The Dark Side of Dataset Scaling: Evaluating Racial Classification in Multimodal Modelscited by 23
- 2024Large-scale moral machine experiment on large language modelscited by 9
- 2025Accelerated Preference Elicitation with LLM-Based Proxiescited by 9
- 2023Eliciting User Preferences for Personalized Multi-Objective Decision Making through Comparative Feedbackcited by 7
- 2024On the Pros and Cons of Active Learning for Moral Preference Elicitationcited by 6
- 2020Towards the Quantification of Safety Risks in Deep Neural Networkscited by 4
- 2024Measuring Machine Learning Harms from Stereotypes Requires Understanding Who Is Harmed by Which Errors in What Wayscited by 4
- 2024Risk-aware Classification via Uncertainty Quantificationcited by 3
- 2023A toolkit of dilemmas: Beyond debiasing and fairness formulas for responsible AI/MLcited by 2
- 2023Assessing Trustworthiness of Autonomous Systemscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.