Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces narration-of-thought (NoT), a structured prompting approach that enhances ethical reasoning in large language models by organizing responses into five distinct sections: protagonist, stakeholders, consequences, uncertainty, and commitment. By applying NoT to 100 DailyDilemmas scenarios, the authors demonstrate a significant reduction in stakeholder collapse from 31% to under 1% and a decrease in uncertainty suppression from up to 72% to between 1-24% across various models, without requiring additional training or fine-tuning. The method not only improves the clarity and accountability of ethical reasoning in AI but also achieves consensus in multi-stakeholder debates, showcasing its potential for practical deployment in agentic systems.
Narration-of-thought transforms ethical reasoning in LLMs, slashing stakeholder collapse and uncertainty suppression to near-zero levels.
Standard chain-of-thought on moral dilemmas exhibits two failure modes: stakeholder collapse (the trace names at most one party with a stake in the outcome) and uncertainty suppression (no explicit unknowns or hedges before committing to an action). We introduce narration-of-thought (NoT), a system prompt that structures chain-of-thought into five sections: protagonist, stakeholders, two-step consequences, uncertainty, then commitment. NoT adds no training, parameters, or fine-tuning. On 100 DailyDilemmas scenarios across four generators from three vendors, NoT cuts stakeholder collapse from up to 31% to under 1% and uncertainty suppression from up to 72% to 1-24% on every model. A matched-budget verbose-CoT control rules out token spend as the active ingredient; NoT retains Cliff's delta advantages of +0.79 to +0.90 on stakeholder count and +0.65 to +0.93 on uncertainty score for three of four generators, and a section ablation attributes each shift to its specific sub-instruction. Textual-gradient descent initialised at NoT improves the scaffold further; a cross-family training judge (different vendor from the generator) dominates an in-family one on every measured axis. Extended to a five-round multi-stakeholder debate protocol, the scaffold converts a 6% standoff into 95% full consensus on a calibration set and 100% combined convergence on a DailyDilemmas replication. The resulting traces externalise the stakeholders, consequences, and uncertainty grounding each commitment, providing an auditable substrate for dependable agentic deployment.
