As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems increasingly influence decision-making across various fields, the need to attribute responsibility for undesirable outcomes has become essential, though complicated by the complex interplay between humans and AI. Existing attribution methods based on actual causality and Shapley values tend to disproportionately blame agents who contribute more to an outcome and rely on real-world measures of blameworthiness that may misalign with responsible AI standards. This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems, measuring overall blameworthiness while employing counterfactual reasoning to account for agents' expected epistemic levels. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.

Responsibility is one of the key notions in machine ethics and in the area of autonomous systems. It is a multi-faceted notion involving counterfactual reasoning about actions and strategies. In this paper, we study different variants of responsibility in a strategic setting based on LTLf. We show a connection with notions in reactive synthesis, including synthesis of winning, dominant, and best-effort strategies. This connection provides the building blocks for a computational grounding of responsibility including complexity characterizations and sound, complete, and optimal algorithms for attributing and anticipating responsibility.

The pervasive integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced complex challenges in the responsibility and accountability in the event of incidents involving AI-enabled systems. The interconnectivity of these systems, ethical concerns of AI-induced incidents, coupled with uncertainties in AI technology and the absence of corresponding regulations, have made traditional responsibility attribution challenging. To this end, this work proposes a Computational Reflective Equilibrium (CRE) approach to establish a coherent and ethically acceptable responsibility attribution framework for all stakeholders. The computational approach provides a structured analysis that overcomes the limitations of conceptual approaches in dealing with dynamic and multifaceted scenarios, showcasing the framework's explainability, coherence, and adaptivity properties in the responsibility attribution process. We examine the pivotal role of the initial activation level associated with claims in equilibrium computation. Using an AI-assisted medical decision-support system as a case study, we illustrate how different initializations lead to diverse responsibility distributions. The framework offers valuable insights into accountability in AI-induced incidents, facilitating the development of a sustainable and resilient system through continuous monitoring, revision, and reflection.

Responsibility anticipation is the process of determining if the actions of an individual agent may cause it to be responsible for a particular outcome. This can be used in a multi-agent planning setting to allow agents to anticipate responsibility in the plans they consider. The planning setting in this paper includes partial information regarding the initial state and considers formulas in linear temporal logic as positive or negative outcomes to be attained or avoided. We firstly define attribution for notions of active, passive and contributive responsibility, and consider their agentive variants. We then use these to define the notion of responsibility anticipation. We prove that our notions of anticipated responsibility can be used to coordinate agents in a planning setting and give complexity results for our model, discussing equivalence with classical planning. We also present an outline for solving some of our attribution and anticipation problems using PDDL solvers.

Responsibility attribution is a key concept of accountable multi-agent decision making. Given a sequence of actions, responsibility attribution mechanisms quantify the impact of each participating agent to the final outcome. One such popular mechanism is based on actual causality, and it assigns (causal) responsibility based on the actions that were found to be pivotal for the considered outcome. However, the inherent problem of pinpointing actual causes and consequently determining the exact responsibility assignment has shown to be computationally intractable. In this paper, we aim to provide a practical algorithmic solution to the problem of responsibility attribution under a computational budget. We first formalize the problem in the framework of Decentralized Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (Dec-POMDPs) augmented by a specific class of Structural Causal Models (SCMs). Under this framework, we introduce a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) type of method which efficiently approximates the agents' degrees of responsibility. This method utilizes the structure of a novel search tree and a pruning technique, both tailored to the problem of responsibility attribution. Other novel components of our method are (a) a child selection policy based on linear scalarization and (b) a backpropagation procedure that accounts for a minimality condition that is typically used to define actual causality. We experimentally evaluate the efficacy of our algorithm through a simulation-based test-bed, which includes three team-based card games.

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.