Redistribution-based Cost Inference Improves Sparse Safe Offline RL

Safe offline RL typically assumes access to dense per-step cost annotations, but in practice supervisors provide only trajectory-level stop-feedback: a binary signal at the first unsafe transition, with no per-step attribution. We frame this as a temporal credit assignment problem and propose the Redistribution-based Cost Inference (RCI) framework, which converts sparse stop-feedback into dense per-step costs via return decomposition, then trains a constrained offline policy on the augmented dataset. We show that return-equivalent redistribution preserves the feasible policy set and the optimal Lagrangian in a CMDP, establishing that the transformation is lossless in theory while yielding better-conditioned cost critic learning in practice. Experiments on highway driving and robotic manipulation demonstrate substantially lower violation rates than sparse and classifier-based baselines, with robustness to heterogeneous dataset compositions and label noise.

CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models

The key question in moral judgement is not simply whether someone chooses the "right" answer, but how they decide what matters most when moral principles conflict. Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) remain limited: most test whether models give morally acceptable answers, match human preferences, or avoid obvious violations, rather than whether they can prioritise between competing principles when no option is morally cost-free. We introduce CORDA (Conditioned Ordering and Ranked Directive Adherence), a benchmark for evaluating hierarchical, harm-centred moral reasoning in LLMs. Building on the morality chains formalism, CORDA tests 90 moral dilemmas involving trolley-style cases, medical trade-offs, resource allocation, and human-animal-robot conflicts across four ordered ethical frameworks: Utility, Utility + Agent Harm, Dual-Process, and Dual-Process + Agent Harm. Together, these frameworks test whether models can adapt their decisions when moral priorities change. Across ten instruction-tuned models from seven providers, we find a strong deontological default, with 9 of 10 prioritising avoidance of direct personal harm over reducing overall harm. Models also perform more reliably on categorical harm-avoidance rules, such as avoiding killing, than on outcome-based comparisons, such as minimising total harm, suggesting that they recognise moral red lines more easily than they reason through competing harms. Although all models respond to explicit chain conditioning, several fail to consistently follow specified priority orderings, such as humans over animals and animals over robots. CORDA addresses a central gap in LLM moral evaluation by testing whether models can move beyond default harm-avoidant responses and apply context-specified moral priorities. Moral reliability requires more than default restraint; it requires controllability under conflict.

MoralityGym: A Benchmark for Evaluating Hierarchical Moral Alignment in Sequential Decision-Making Agents

Evaluating moral alignment in agents navigating conflicting, hierarchically structured human norms is a critical challenge at the intersection of AI safety, moral philosophy, and cognitive science. We introduce Morality Chains, a novel formalism for representing moral norms as ordered deontic constraints, and MoralityGym, a benchmark of 98 ethical-dilemma problems presented as trolley-dilemma-style Gymnasium environments. By decoupling task-solving from moral evaluation and introducing a novel Morality Metric, MoralityGym allows the integration of insights from psychology and philosophy into the evaluation of norm-sensitive reasoning. Baseline results with Safe RL methods reveal key limitations, underscoring the need for more principled approaches to ethical decision-making. This work provides a foundation for developing AI systems that behave more reliably, transparently, and ethically in complex real-world contexts.