Achieving Robust Alignment in Autonomous Systems via Inverse Reinforcement Learning Integrating Human Ethical Value Priors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66280/cis.v4i1.127Abstract
The rapid integration of autonomous systems into the critical infrastructure of modern society necessitates a transition from narrow functional optimization to broad value alignment. Traditional reinforcement learning frameworks often fail to account for the nuanced, context-dependent ethical constraints that govern human decision-making. This paper explores the advancement of Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) as a primary mechanism for extracting and internalizing human ethical value priors. Unlike standard reward-engineering approaches, which are prone to reward hacking and distributional shift, the integration of ethical priors allows autonomous agents to infer underlying normative structures from expert demonstrations. We analyze the architectural requirements for such systems, emphasizing the need for robust socio-technical infrastructures that support cross-domain value consistency. The discussion extends to the governance of these systems, addressing the structural trade-offs between performance efficiency and ethical adherence. We argue that robust alignment is not merely a technical challenge but a multi-scale governance problem involving data provenance, algorithmic transparency, and the mitigation of cultural bias in generative models. By synthesizing perspectives from systems engineering, moral philosophy, and artificial intelligence, this research provides a comprehensive framework for deploying autonomous systems that are both functionally superior and ethically grounded. The paper concludes by examining the long-term sustainability of aligned infrastructures in the face of evolving societal norms and the imperative of maintaining fairness across diverse global populations.
References
1.Abbeel, P., & Ng, A. Y. (2004). Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning, 1.
2.Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565.
3.Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University Press.
4.Brown, D. S., Goo, W., Nagarajan, P., & Niekum, S. (2019). Extrapolating beyond optimal demonstrations via confidence-aware inverse reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning.
5.Bryson, J. J., & Winfield, A. F. (2017). Standardizing ethical design for artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Computer, 50(5), 116-119.
6.Christian, B. (2020). The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values. W. W. Norton & Company.
7.Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., & Amodei, D. (2017). Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
8.Danaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 245-268.
9.Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
10.Gabriel, I. (2020). Artificial intelligence, values, and alignment. Minds and Machines, 30(3), 411-437.
11.Hadfield-Menell, D., Milli, S., Abbeel, P., Russell, S. J., & Dragan, A. (2017). Inverse reward design. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30.
12.Hadfield-Menell, D., Russell, S. J., Abbeel, P., & Dragan, A. (2016). Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 29.
13.Jeon, H. J., Milli, S., & Dragan, A. (2020). Reward-rational (implicit) choice: A unifying formalism for reward learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 4415-4426.
14.Leike, J., Martic, M., Krakovna, V., Ortega, P. A., Everitt, T., Lefrancq, A., ... & Legg, S. (2017). AI safety gridworlds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09883.
15.Milli, S., Dragan, A. D., & Russell, S. J. (2017). Should robots be obedient? IJCAI Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
16.Ng, A. Y., & Russell, S. J. (2000). Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. Icml, 1, 2.
17.O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown.
18.Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., Bongard, J., Bonnefon, J. F., Breazeal, C., ... & Wellman, M. P. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477-486.
19.Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking.
20.Selvaggi, G., & Thompson, K. (2023). Ethics of autonomous systems in critical infrastructure. Journal of Engineering Ethics, 12(2), 145-160.
21.Shah, R., Gundotra, N., Knott, P., & Abbeel, P. (2019). On the feasibility of learning, rather than assuming, human preferences for computer systems. ICML Workshop on Human-in-the-Loop Learning.
22.Shi, C., Li, S., Guo, S., Xie, S., Wu, W., Dou, J., ... & Chua, T. S. (2025). Where Culture Fades: Revealing the Cultural Gap in Text-to-Image Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.17282.
23.Soares, N., Fallenstein, B., Armstrong, S., & Yudkowsky, E. (2015). Corrigibility. AAAI Workshop: AI and Ethics.
24.Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press.
25.Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Regulating algorithms: Trust, transparency and accountability. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 20170360.
26.Taylor, J., Yudkowsky, E., LaVictoire, P., & Critch, A. (2016). Alignment for advanced machine learning systems. Machine Intelligence Research Institute.
27.Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford University Press.
28.Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2008). Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford University Press.
29.Wiener, N. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation. Science, 132(3437), 1355-1358.
30.Yudkowsky, E. (2008). Artificial intelligence as a positive and negative factor in global risk. Global Catastrophic Risks, 1(303), 184.
31.Ziebart, B. D., Maas, A. L., Bagnell, J. A., & Dey, A. K. (2008). Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. AAAI, 8, 1433-1438.
32.Zimmer, M. (2021). The socio-technical design of AI: A survey of alignment strategies. International Journal of Technoethics, 12(1), 1-15.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Computational Intelligence Systems
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
