MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403990666 · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100599

Moral decision making: Explainable insights into the role of working memory in autonomous driving

2024· article· en· W4403990666 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning with Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyWorking memoryCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCognitionNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Working memory load impedes utilitarianism under time pressure. • Gaussian Naive Bayes model predicts ethical decisions with up to 97 % accuracy. • 2-second decision window optimal for balancing time constraints and working memory. • Partial Dependence Plots show strong negative correlation between workload and moral choices. • Findings inform development of ethically-aligned AI systems under cognitive load. The intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and moral philosophy presents unique challenges in the development of autonomous vehicles, particularly in scenarios requiring split-second ethical decisions. This study examines the relationship between working memory (WM) and moral judgments in simulated AV scenarios, quantifying the effects of varying cognitive load on utilitarian decision-making under different time constraints. We experimented with 336 participants, each completing 16 simulated driving trials presenting unique ethical dilemmas. Results reveal a complex interplay between cognitive load and ethical choices. Under high temporal pressure (1-second response window), utilitarian decisions decreased significantly from 92.77 % to 70.08 %. Extended time constraints led to increased utilitarian choices. Statistical analyses validated these findings across diverse ethical contexts. Chi-square tests revealed significant associations between WM load and utilitarian decisions in 1-second conditions, particularly for high-stakes scenarios. Logistic regression showed that WM significantly decreased the likelihood of utilitarian decisions in these scenarios. Six supervised machine learning models were employed, with Gaussian Naive Bayes achieving the highest predictive accuracy (82.2 % to 97.0 %) in distinguishing utilitarian decisions. Partial Dependence analysis revealed a strong negative correlation between WM and utilitarian decisions, especially in the 1-second interval. The 2-second interval emerged as potentially optimal for balancing time constraints and cognitive load. These findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of ethical decision-making under cognitive load and provide practical insights for developing ethically aligned autonomous systems, with implications for improving safety, optimizing takeover protocols, and enhancing the ethical reasoning capabilities of autonomous driving systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it