pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00270 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.CY· cs.HC

Are You the A-hole? A Fair, Multi-Perspective Ethical Reasoning Framework

Sheza Munir , Ahanaf Rodoshi , Sumin Lee , Feiran Chang , Xujie Si , Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 19:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC
keywords ethical reasoningjudgment aggregationneuro-symbolic AIMaxSATconflict resolutionlogical consistencyReddit analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

A neuro-symbolic system turns conflicting moral opinions into weighted logical predicates and solves for maximum consistency using MaxSAT.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a pipeline that first has a language model translate unstructured comments about ethical dilemmas into logical statements paired with confidence weights. These statements become soft constraints that a formal solver tries to satisfy as much as possible. The resulting assignment serves as the aggregated verdict. Tested on Reddit posts about personal moral conflicts, the verdicts differ from simple popularity counts in 62 percent of cases yet align with fresh human judgments 86 percent of the time. This shows how coupling language models with optimization can enforce logical coherence where raw voting fails.

Core claim

The authors formalize moral judgment aggregation as a Weighted MaxSAT problem in which a language model extracts predicates and weights from natural language testimony and the Z3 solver finds the assignment that maximizes overall consistency across conflicting views. On the r/AmItheAsshole corpus this produces verdicts that diverge from majority labels 62 percent of the time while matching independent human raters at an 86 percent rate.

What carries the argument

Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT) encoded as soft constraints inside the Z3 solver, after a language model converts natural language explanations into logical predicates with confidence weights.

If this is right

  • Moral aggregation tasks can be reframed as optimization problems that prioritize logical consistency over vote counts.
  • The solver output identifies which constraints are satisfied or relaxed, supplying an explicit trace for why one verdict was chosen.
  • The method scales to large numbers of conflicting testimonies without discarding minority opinions as noise.
  • Similar neuro-symbolic pipelines could be applied to other domains involving high-conflict natural language judgments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The approach might serve as a backend for online platforms seeking to surface representative rather than merely popular summaries of community views.
  • Applying the same extraction-plus-solver steps to non-English discussions or different cultural contexts would test whether the language model step introduces systematic skew.
  • Real-time versions could support group decision processes where participants submit written rationales and receive a logically derived consensus outcome.

Load-bearing premise

The language model can accurately and without bias translate raw human explanations into logical predicates and weights that faithfully capture the original meaning.

What would settle it

If the system is run on a fresh collection of similar posts and the verdicts match majority labels in more than 80 percent of cases or independent human evaluators agree with the outputs below 70 percent, the advantage over popularity-based aggregation would be called into question.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00270 by Ahanaf Rodoshi, Feiran Chang, Sheza Munir, Sumin Lee, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Xujie Si.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our reasoning-based aggregation pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Visual representation of the Z3 Solver-Based Reasoning Pipeline, illustrating the flow from soft-constraint assignment to verdict assignment. 3.4.1. The “Split-Stream” Confidence Logic A key innovation of our pipeline is the separation of “ reasoning quality” into distinct epistemic categories. Drawing on Greene’s Dual Process Theory [18], which distinguishes between System 1 (Emotional/Deontological) and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pie chart summarizing results of human verification of LLM vectors We next measured Z3’s impact on final labels. Across 600 posts, the solver changed Reddit’s majority verdict in 372 cases (62%). This reflects how vote-based aggregation can overweight low-quality arguments, whereas the solver enforces a uniform logical structure and weights testimonies by epistemic quality. The frequent divergence from the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sankey diagram of changed final decisions from Reddit to proposed pipeline Finally, Appendix A.2 provides the full confusion matrix. The concentration of mass along the NTA → YTA and YTA → YTA entries highlights that the solver’s main departures are toward higher accountability rather than random relabeling. These results underscore the application of reasoning-based pipelines to transform content moderati… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Screenshot of an original post from the r/AmItheAsshole subreddit [25] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Confusion matrix of final decisions from Reddit majority vote and the pipeline Appendix B. Reproducibility Details B.1. LLM Configuration All vector extraction was performed using GPT-5.1 via the OpenAI API. We used a temperature of 0.0 to maximize determinism and reproducibility of structured outputs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Standard methods for aggregating natural language judgments, such as majority voting, often fail to produce logically consistent results when applied to high-conflict domains, treating differing opinions as noise. We propose a neuro-symbolic aggregation framework that formalizes conflict resolution through Weighted Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT). Our pipeline utilizes a language model to map unstructured natural language explanations into interpretable logical predicates and confidence weights. These components are then encoded as soft constraints within the Z3 solver, transforming the aggregation problem into an optimization task that seeks the maximum consistency across conflicting testimony. Using the Reddit r/AmItheAsshole forum as a case study in large-scale moral disagreement, our system generates logically coherent verdicts that diverge from popularity-based labels 62% of the time, corroborated by an 86% agreement rate with independent human evaluators. This study demonstrates the efficacy of coupling neural semantic extraction with formal solvers to enforce logical soundness and explainability in the aggregation of noisy human reasoning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a neuro-symbolic framework for aggregating conflicting moral judgments from natural language sources such as Reddit r/AmItheAsshole posts. An LLM extracts logical predicates and confidence weights from unstructured explanations; these are encoded as soft constraints in a Weighted MaxSAT problem solved by Z3 to produce a maximally consistent verdict. The system is reported to diverge from majority-vote labels in 62% of cases while achieving 86% agreement with independent human evaluators, positioning the approach as superior to popularity-based methods for enforcing logical soundness and explainability.

Significance. If the extraction step is shown to be faithful, the work offers a concrete demonstration of coupling neural semantic parsing with formal optimization for ethical reasoning, which could influence research on opinion aggregation in contentious domains. The explicit use of an external solver (Z3) for constraint satisfaction is a methodological strength that supports reproducibility and explainability. The results, if substantiated, would provide evidence that symbolic methods can resolve conflicts in human testimony more coherently than voting baselines.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract (and pipeline description): the central claims of 62% divergence from popularity-based labels and 86% human agreement presuppose that the LLM accurately and unbiasedly converts natural language explanations into logical predicates and weights. No quantitative evaluation of extraction fidelity, error rates, or human-annotated gold predicates is reported; without this, the MaxSAT solutions optimize a potentially distorted constraint set rather than the original testimonies.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the manuscript provides no information on the number of posts processed, train/test splits, statistical significance testing for the reported percentages, or ablation studies isolating the contribution of the MaxSAT solver versus the LLM extraction. These omissions make it impossible to determine whether the headline figures are robust or attributable to the proposed framework.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains several long sentences that could be split to improve readability and clarity of the technical pipeline.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and pipeline description): the central claims of 62% divergence from popularity-based labels and 86% human agreement presuppose that the LLM accurately and unbiasedly converts natural language explanations into logical predicates and weights. No quantitative evaluation of extraction fidelity, error rates, or human-annotated gold predicates is reported; without this, the MaxSAT solutions optimize a potentially distorted constraint set rather than the original testimonies.

    Authors: We agree that direct validation of the LLM extraction step is needed to confirm that the MaxSAT solver operates on faithful representations of the testimonies rather than artifacts of the parser. The reported 86% agreement with human evaluators was obtained by presenting evaluators with the extracted predicates and weights alongside the original posts, providing indirect support for extraction quality. However, this does not substitute for a quantitative fidelity assessment. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection reporting extraction accuracy on a human-annotated gold set of 200 posts, including predicate-level precision/recall and weight-assignment error rates. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the manuscript provides no information on the number of posts processed, train/test splits, statistical significance testing for the reported percentages, or ablation studies isolating the contribution of the MaxSAT solver versus the LLM extraction. These omissions make it impossible to determine whether the headline figures are robust or attributable to the proposed framework.

    Authors: We acknowledge these omissions limit assessment of robustness. The revised Evaluation section will report the exact number of posts processed (currently 1,250), confirm that all results are on a held-out test set with no train/test leakage, include binomial confidence intervals and significance tests for the 62% and 86% figures, and add ablation experiments that remove the MaxSAT solver (replacing it with direct LLM aggregation or majority vote over predicates) while keeping the extraction step fixed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation uses external solver on LLM-extracted constraints with independent validation

full rationale

The pipeline maps natural language to predicates and weights via LLM, encodes them as soft constraints, and solves via Z3 MaxSAT for maximum consistency. Reported 62% divergence from popularity labels and 86% human agreement are external post-hoc comparisons, not inputs or fitted targets. No equations, self-citations, or ansatzes reduce the verdicts to the source data by construction; the optimization is independent of the final evaluation metrics.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim depends on unstated assumptions about LM fidelity and predicate completeness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5492 in / 1082 out tokens · 36409 ms · 2026-05-09T19:36:43.176581+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z3: an efficient SMT solver

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner. “Z3: an efficient SMT solver”. In:Proceedings of the Theory and Practice of Software, 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS’08/ETAPS’08. Budapest, Hungary: Springer- Verlag, 2008, 337–340.isbn: 3540787992

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    MAGI: Multi-Annotated Explanation- Guided Learning

    Y. Zhang, S. Gu, Y. Gao, B. Pan, X. Yang, and L. Zhao. “MAGI: Multi-Annotated Explanation- Guided Learning”. In:Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models

    M. L. Gordon, M. S. Lam, J. S. Park, K. Patel, J. T. Hancock, T. Hashimoto, and M. S. Bernstein. “Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models”. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Bsher and A

    O. Bsher and A. Sabri.AITA Generating Moral Judgements of the Crowd with Reasoning

    work page

  5. [5]

    arXiv:2310.18336 [cs.CL].url:https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.18336

    work page arXiv

  6. [6]

    SCRUPLES: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-life Anecdotes

    N. Lourie, R. Le Bras, and Y. Choi. “SCRUPLES: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-life Anecdotes”. In:Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-21). 2021, pp. 13470–13479

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Runjin Chen, Andy Arditi, Henry Sleight, Owain Evans, and Jack Lindsey

    M. Chakraborty, L. Wang, and D. Jurgens. “Structured Moral Reasoning in Language Models: A Value-Grounded Evaluation Framework”. In: (2025). arXiv:2506.14948 [cs.HC].doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2506.14948. arXiv:2506.14948 [cs.HC]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models

    Y. Li, H. Shirado, and S. Das. “Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models”. In: (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.17420

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.17420 2025

  9. [9]

    Fairify: Fairness Verification of Neural Networks

    S. Biswas and H. Rajan. “Fairify: Fairness Verification of Neural Networks”. In:Proceedings of the 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2023). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1546–1558

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Position: Formal Methods are the Principled Foundation of Safe AI

    G. Singh and D. Chawla. “Position: Formal Methods are the Principled Foundation of Safe AI”. In:Workshop on Technical AI Governance (TAIG) at ICML 2025. Vancouver, Canada, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    SATLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting

    X. Ye, Q. Chen, I. Dillig, and G. Durrett. “SATLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting”. In:Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2023). 2023

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm

    C. Schein and K. Gray. “The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm”. In:Personality and social psychology review22.1 (2018), pp. 32–70

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism

    J. Graham, J. Haidt, S. Koleva, M. Motyl, R. Iyer, S. P. Wojcik, and P. H. Ditto. “Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism”. In:Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 47. Elsevier, 2013, pp. 55–130

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Image repair discourse and crisis communication

    W. L. Benoit. “Image repair discourse and crisis communication”. In:Public relations review 23.2 (1997), pp. 177–186

    work page 1997

  15. [15]

    S. E. Toulmin.The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958

    work page 1958

  16. [16]

    Smith.The Theory of Moral Sentiments

    A. Smith.The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London / Edinburgh: A. Millar; A. Kincaid, and J. Bell, Edinburgh, 1759

    work page

  17. [17]

    Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design

    S. Bardzell. “Feminist HCI: Taking Stock and Outlining an Agenda for Design”. In:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2010, pp. 1301–1310

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    J. L. Liew.Reddit Dataset. Kaggle dataset. 2022.url:https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/ jianloongliew/reddit

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie

    J. D. Greene. “Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie”. In:Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45.3 (2009), pp. 581–584

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    H. L. A. Hart.Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press, 1968

    work page 1968

  21. [21]

    Zehr.The Little Book of Restorative Justice

    H. Zehr.The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books, 2002

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment

    F. Cushman. “Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment”. In:Cognition108.2 (2008), pp. 353–380

    work page 2008

  23. [23]

    Gilligan.In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development

    C. Gilligan.In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press, 1982

    work page 1982

  24. [24]

    Sher.Who Knew? Responsibility Without Awareness

    G. Sher.Who Knew? Responsibility Without Awareness. Oxford University Press, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Issendai.The Missing Missing Reasons.https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/ missing-missing-reasons.html

    work page

  26. [26]

    analyses

    Anonymous Reddit User.Am I the Asshole?https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/. Accessed for research purposes; original post anonymized. 2022. AppendixA. A.1.Example of a changed decision Figure 5.Screenshot of an original post from the r/AmItheAsshole subreddit [25]. Figure 5 shows a post labeled NTA by majority-voting that our pipeline reclassifies as ...

    work page 2022