As autonomous systems rapidly become ubiquitous, there is a growing need for a legal and regulatory framework toaddress when and how such a system harms someone. There have been several attempts within the philosophy literature to define harm, but none of them has proven capable of dealing with with the many examples that have been presented, leading some to suggest that the notion of harm should be abandoned and ``replaced by more well-behaved notions''. As harm is generally something that is caused, most of these definitions have involved causality at some level. Yet surprisingly, none of them makes use of causal models and the definitions of actual causality that they can express. In this paper we formally define a qualitative notion of harm that uses causal models and is based on a well-known definition of actual causality (Halpern, 2016). The key novelty of our definition is that it is based on contrastive causation and uses a default utility to which the utility of actual outcomes is compared. We show that our definition is able to handle the examples from the literature, and illustrate its importance for reasoning about situations involving autonomous systems.

Structural Equation Models (SEM) are the standard approach to representing causal dependencies between variables in causal models. In this paper we propose a new interpretation of SEMs when reasoning about Actual Causality, in which SEMs are viewed as mechanisms transforming the dynamics of exogenous variables into the dynamics of endogenous variables. This allows us to combine counterfactual causal reasoning with existing temporal logic formalisms, and to introduce a temporal logic, CPLTL, for causal reasoning about such structures. We show that the standard restriction to so-called \textit{recursive} models (with no cycles in the dependency graph) is not necessary in our approach, allowing us to reason about mutually dependent processes and feedback loops. Finally, we introduce new notions of model equivalence for temporal causal models, and show that CPLTL has an efficient model-checking procedure.

Since the proposal by Halpern and Pearl, reasoning about actual causality has gained increasing attention in artificial intelligence, ranging from domains such as model-checking and verification to reasoning about actions and knowledge. More recently, Batusov and Soutchanski proposed a notion of actual achievement cause in the situation calculus, amongst others, they can determine the cause of quantified effects in a given action history. While intuitively appealing, this notion of cause is not defined in a counterfactual perspective. In this paper, we propose a notion of cause based on counterfactual analysis. In the context of action history, we show that our notion of cause generalizes naturally to a notion of achievement cause. We analyze the relationship between our notion of the achievement cause and the achievement cause by Batusov and Soutchanski. Finally, we relate our account of cause to Halpern and Pearl's account of actual causality. Particularly, we note some nuances in applying a counterfactual viewpoint to disjunctive goals, a common thorn to definitions of actual causes.

As autonomous systems rapidly become ubiquitous, there is a growing need for a legal and regulatory framework toaddress when and how such a system harms someone. There have been several attempts within the philosophy literature to define harm, but none of them has proven capable of dealing with with the many examples that have been presented, leading some to suggest that the notion of harm should be abandoned and replaced by more well-behaved notions''. As harm is generally something that is caused, most of these definitions have involved causality at some level. Yet surprisingly, none of them makes use of causal models and the definitions of actual causality that they can express. In this paper we formally define a qualitative notion of harm that uses causal models and is based on a well-known definition of actual causality (Halpern, 2016).

Causality is crucial in human reasoning and knowledge. Defining and formalizing causality has been a significant area of research in philosophy and formal methods [12, 21, 24, 11]. In recent years, with the rise of machine learning and AI, there has been growing interest in formalizing causal reasoning. One of the key areas of AI research is designing algorithms capable of comprehending causal information and performing causal reasoning [5, 29, 30]. Causal reasoning can be instrumental in formally modeling notions such as responsibility, blame, harm, and explanation, which are important aspects in designing ethical and responsible AI systems [3]. In this article we focus on the kind of causality known as "actual causality" (a.k.a.

The causal capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a matter of significant debate, with critical implications for the use of LLMs in societally impactful domains such as medicine, science, law, and policy. We further our understanding of LLMs and their causal implications, considering the distinctions between different types of causal reasoning tasks, as well as the entangled threats of construct and measurement validity. LLM-based methods establish new state-of-the-art accuracies on multiple causal benchmarks. Algorithms based on GPT-3.5 and 4 outperform existing algorithms on a pairwise causal discovery task (97%, 13 points gain), counterfactual reasoning task (92%, 20 points gain), and actual causality (86% accuracy in determining necessary and sufficient causes in vignettes). At the same time, LLMs exhibit unpredictable failure modes and we provide some techniques to interpret their robustness. Crucially, LLMs perform these causal tasks while relying on sources of knowledge and methods distinct from and complementary to non-LLM based approaches. Specifically, LLMs bring capabilities so far understood to be restricted to humans, such as using collected knowledge to generate causal graphs or identifying background causal context from natural language. We envision LLMs to be used alongside existing causal methods, as a proxy for human domain knowledge and to reduce human effort in setting up a causal analysis, one of the biggest impediments to the widespread adoption of causal methods. We also see existing causal methods as promising tools for LLMs to formalize, validate, and communicate their reasoning especially in high-stakes scenarios. In capturing common sense and domain knowledge about causal mechanisms and supporting translation between natural language and formal methods, LLMs open new frontiers for advancing the research, practice, and adoption of causality.

Actual causality and a closely related concept of responsibility attribution are central to accountable decision making. Actual causality focuses on specific outcomes and aims to identify decisions (actions) that were critical in realizing an outcome of interest. Responsibility attribution is complementary and aims to identify the extent to which decision makers (agents) are responsible for this outcome. In this paper, we study these concepts under a widely used framework for multi-agent sequential decision making under uncertainty: decentralized partially observable Markov decision processes (Dec-POMDPs). Following recent works in RL that show correspondence between POMDPs and Structural Causal Models (SCMs), we first establish a connection between Dec-POMDPs and SCMs. This connection enables us to utilize a language for describing actual causality from prior work and study existing definitions of actual causality in Dec-POMDPs. Given that some of the well-known definitions may lead to counter-intuitive actual causes, we introduce a novel definition that more explicitly accounts for causal dependencies between agents' actions. We then turn to responsibility attribution based on actual causality, where we argue that in ascribing responsibility to an agent it is important to consider both the number of actual causes in which the agent participates, as well as its ability to manipulate its own degree of responsibility. Motivated by these arguments we introduce a family of responsibility attribution methods that extends prior work, while accounting for the aforementioned considerations. Finally, through a simulation-based experiment, we compare different definitions of actual causality and responsibility attribution methods. The empirical results demonstrate the qualitative difference between the considered definitions of actual causality and their impact on attributed responsibility.

Recent formal approaches towards causality have made the concept ready for incorporation into the technical world. However, causality reasoning is computationally hard; and no general algorithmic approach exists that efficiently infers the causes for effects. Thus, checking causality in the context of complex, multi-agent, and distributed socio-technical systems is a significant challenge. Therefore, we conceptualize an intelligent and novel algorithmic approach towards checking causality in acyclic causal models with binary variables, utilizing the optimization power in the solvers of the Boolean Satisfiability Problem (SAT). We present two SAT encodings, and an empirical evaluation of their efficiency and scalability. We show that causality is computed efficiently in less than 5 seconds for models that consist of more than 4000 variables.