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
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 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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers6
- Rephrase, Augment, Reason: Visual Grounding of Questions for Vision-Language ModelsArchiki Prasad, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit BansalICLR 2024 · 13 citations
- What Makes a Good Natural Language Prompt?Do Xuan Long, Duy Dinh, Ngoc-Hai Nguyen, Kenji Kawaguchi et al.ACL 2025 · 13 citations
- I Could've Asked That: Reformulating Unanswerable QuestionsWenting Zhao, Ge Gao, Claire Cardie, Alexander M. RushEMNLP 2024 · 2 citations
- Social Story Frames: Contextual Reasoning about Narrative Intent and ReceptionJoel Mire, Maria Antoniak, Steven R. Wilson, Zexin Ma et al.ACL 2026 · 2 citations
- Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and DutiesTaylor Sorensen, Liwei Jiang, Jena D. Hwang, Sydney Levine et al.AAAI 2024
Builds on12
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTTianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger et al.ICLR 2020 · 8,443 citations
- Deberta: decoding-Enhanced Bert with Disentangled AttentionPengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, Weizhu ChenICLR 2021 · 3,729 citations
- Aligning AI With Shared Human ValuesDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch et al.ICLR 2021 · 878 citations
Related papers
- Think about it! Improving defeasible reasoning by first modeling the question scenarioAman Madaan, Niket Tandon, Dheeraj Rajagopal, Peter Clark et al.EMNLP 2021
- Delphi: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Individualized, Safe and Interpretable Treatment RecommendationMuchan Tao, Haonan Qin, Yuqi Fang, Caifeng Shan et al.AAAI 2026
- When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral JudgmentZhijing Jin, Sydney Levine, Fernando Gonzalez Adauto, Ojasv Kamal et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 146 citations
- Asking What Matters: Reward-Driven Clarification for Software Engineering TasksSanidhya Vijayvargiya, Vijay Viswanathan, Graham NeubigICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Epistemic Gain, Aleatoric Cost: Uncertainty Decomposition in Multi-Agent Debate for Math ReasoningDan Qiao, Binbin Chen, Fengyu Cai, Jianlong Chen et al.ICML 2026 · 3 citations
