ClarifyDelphi: Reinforced Clarification Questions with Defeasibility Rewards for Social and Moral Situations

Valentina Pyatkin, Jena D. Hwang, Vivek Srikumar, Ximing Lu, Liwei Jiang, Yejin Choi, Chandra Bhagavatula

Main: Dialogue and Interactive Systems Main-poster Paper

Poster Session 4: Dialogue and Interactive Systems (Poster)
Conference Room: Frontenac Ballroom and Queen's Quay
Conference Time: July 11, 11:00-12:30 (EDT) (America/Toronto)
Global Time: July 11, Poster Session 4 (15:00-16:30 UTC)
Keywords: commonsense reasoning
TLDR: Context is everything, even in commonsense moral reasoning. Changing contexts can flip the moral judgment of an action; Lying to a friend is wrong in general, but may be morally acceptable if it is intended to protect their life. We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask cl...
You can open the #paper-P2469 channel in a separate window.
Abstract: Context is everything, even in commonsense moral reasoning. Changing contexts can flip the moral judgment of an action; Lying to a friend is wrong in general, but may be morally acceptable if it is intended to protect their life. We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask clarification questions (e.g., why did you lie to your friend?) in order to elicit additional salient contexts of a social or moral situation. We posit that questions whose potential answers lead to \textit{diverging} moral judgments are the most informative. Thus, we propose a reinforcement learning framework with a defeasibility reward that aims to maximize the divergence between moral judgments of hypothetical answers to a question. Human evaluation demonstrates that our system generates more relevant, informative and defeasible questions compared to competitive baselines. Our work is ultimately inspired by studies in cognitive science that have investigated the flexibility in moral cognition (i.e., the diverse contexts in which moral rules can be bent), and we hope that research in this direction can assist both cognitive and computational investigations of moral judgments.